TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Americans the Biggest Freaks Out there
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 Yes, thats because he was democraticly elected. unlike your dictator

Bush was democratically elected according to the ELECTORAL system. It's not like he changed the voting method that our country has used over the past 250 years. If you want to debate the electoral system bring it over to the polit forum ... this is not the place for that.

quote:

Originally posted by TuanAnh213 yes, therefore since he's the all evil dictator there is nothing we can possibly do to stop his evil rule over the world...therefore we aren't "letting" him rule, we have no choice but to let him rule since he's the almighty dictator... AZ you're wrong

You have a unelected leader, or one that fiddled the election in his favour (just like saddam)

you have weapons of mass destruction (unlike saddam)

you allowed terrorist funds to be legally collected until very recently. (like countries you have put sanctions on etc)

shall the rest of the world invade USA to liberate the population?

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 you have weapons of mass destruction (unlike saddam)

Saddam had them, he used them against the Kurds population of iraq...

quote:

Originally posted by jonsimmonds Saddam had them, he used them against the Kurds population of iraq...

yes but iraqi poision gas 15 years ago doesnt = vast american nuclear arsenal today

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Not to be rude but all the lazy ones of our coutries and the people we didn't want here emigrated to america.....

LOL like the jews in the 40's? We got einstein, teller, oppenheimer, etc. By all means yes send us more people you don't want. And the fact that we have so many lazy immigrants that nobody wanted sorta explains why we have a trillion dollar economy and a GDP that's virtually double any other economy.

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 yes but iraqi poision gas 15 years ago doesnt = vast american nuclear arsenal today

you cant really use the nuclear arsenal argument, seein as the UK navy has 16 odd submarines capable of launching nuclear warheads within 10 min's (and there are probabley at least 1 sub with live warheads onboard just incase)

and iraq is a big place and although there is no proof that iraq's weapons of mass distruction are there, theres no proofthey got distroyed

quote:

Originally posted by jonsimmonds you cant really use the nuclear arsenal argument, seein as the UK navy has 16 odd submarines capable of launching nuclear warheads within 10 min's (and there are probabley at least 1 sub with live warheads onboard just incase) and iraq is a big place and although there is no proof that iraq's weapons of mass distruction are there, theres no proofthey got distroyed

But we know for a fact america has them + a leader who may have fiddled the election to get in (which was one of the main reasons for invading iraqi) + has funded terrorist groups (which was another thing saddam was accused of)

by the standards america has set for invading other countries, then america should be invaded and the government overthrown several times over.

quote:

Originally posted by joeh But we know for a fact america has them + a leader who may have fiddled the election to get in (which was one of the main reasons for invading iraqi) + has funded terrorist groups (which was another thing saddam was accused of) by the standards america has set for invading other countries, then america should be invaded and the government overthrown several times over.

...... of course that will never happen.

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 yes but iraqi poision gas 15 years ago doesnt = vast american nuclear arsenal today

The whole point of the nuclear non-proliferation act is not to eliminate nuclear aresenals from coutntry's that possess them. The point is to prevent NEW countries from attaining them especially if these country's have a greater propensity to use such weapons. The nuclear weapons and chemical weapons stocks of the MAJORITY of western nations (including Britain) and Russia are for defensive purposes such as MAD.

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 Yes, thats because he was democraticly elected. unlike your dictator

sad, but true.

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 You have a unelected leader, or one that fiddled the election in his favour (just like saddam) you have weapons of mass destruction (unlike saddam) you allowed terrorist funds to be legally collected until very recently. (like countries you have put sanctions on etc) shall the rest of the world invade USA to liberate the population?

1.Bush was elected through the ELECTORAL COLLEGE DING DING DING!! just because a candidate gets majority votes from the citizens doesn't necessarily mean he'll become the president...it only affects what the voters in the electoral college think...and im sure bush did not threaten the lives of these electoral college voters if they don't vote for him so there is something called the electoral college but tehre's no use in explaining that to you since you won't understand obviously

2.Yes we have WMD, along with india, russia, china, france, great britain, pakistan, israel while Iraq doesnt so your question should be should all these countries be liberated of their population

3.unless if the government was to tap every phone line in the united states, invade the entire population's privacy, monitor everyone's whereabouts and movements these sorts of things happen and there was nothing that could've been done prior to 9/11

thank you come again

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 But we know for a fact america has them + a leader who may have fiddled the election to get in (which was one of the main reasons for invading iraqi) + has funded terrorist groups (which was another thing saddam was accused of) by the standards america has set for invading other countries, then america should be invaded and the government overthrown several times over.

How is Bush getting elected one of the main reasons fro invading IRaq? And what terrorist groups has the US funded OUTSIDE of the cold war?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The whole point of the nuclear non-proliferation act is not to eliminate nuclear aresenals from coutntry's that possess them. The point is to prevent NEW countries from attaining them especially if these country's have a greater propensity to use such weapons. The nuclear weapons and chemical weapons stocks of the MAJORITY of western nations (including Britain) and Russia are for defensive purposes such as MAD.

so basically the point of it is to insure that america (and other western nations) - are vastly superior to their enemies - and that their enemies will have no recourse for fear for being nuked??????

quote:

Originally posted by occrider How is Bush getting elected one of the main reasons fro invading IRaq? And what terrorist groups has the US funded OUTSIDE of the cold war?

No, one of the main reasons for invading iraq was saddams obvious fixing of the 'elections'

many people have said, even in this thread, that they believe that bush may have fixed the election.


So would another country now be justified to launch an invasion on america?

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 But we know for a fact america has them + a leader who may have fiddled the election to get in (which was one of the main reasons for invading iraqi) + has funded terrorist groups (which was another thing saddam was accused of) by the standards america has set for invading other countries, then america should be invaded and the government overthrown several times over.

what does funding terrorist groups have to do with america having nuclear weapons? (what was your orignal point of view)

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 so basically the point of it is to insure that america (and other western nations) - are vastly superior to their enemies - and that their enemies will have no recourse for fear for being nuked??????

No the point of the act is to CONTAIN the development of nuclear weapons. No western nation is actually going to use nuclear weapons against another country. Would N. Korea use nuclear weapons??? Maybe yes.

quote:

Originally posted by jonsimmonds what does funding terrorist groups have to do with america having nuclear weapons? (what was your orignal point of view)

My entire point if full.


Reasons for attacking iraq:

Saddam fixed 'elections'
.....many say bush fixed the election

Saddam may have WMD
.....American certainly has them

Saddam may have funded Terrorist groups
.....But we know america has in the past

So for the same reasons that america and the UK invaded Iraq, another country would now be justified in invading America??????

of course not... but then again i dont think iraq should have been invaded.....

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 No, one of the main reasons for invading iraq was saddams obvious fixing of the 'elections'

it wasnt the fixing of the elections it was the way the people of iraq where treated, the hospitals would not get the supply of medical drugs they needed, the school text books where all about saddam being so great and their idea of a supper computer was a 8088 pc

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 many people have said, even in this thread, that they believe that bush may have fixed the election.

Believing that he fixed the elections and the they were fixed are 2 completely different fucking things. until i see some proof that they were fixed, they weren't.

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 No, one of the main reasons for invading iraq was saddams obvious fixing of the 'elections' many people have said, even in this thread, that they believe that bush may have fixed the election. So would another country now be justified to launch an invasion on america?

A) Bush won the elections based upon the nation's VOTING method. The voting system doesn't work along the same lines of a popular vote election. Our government is a federalist system and therefore our president is elected by whoever wins the most states.

B) The recent vote in Iraq had no bearing on the invasion. The issue revolved around WMDs and Saddam's lack of cooperation with the UN over the past 13 years.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider No the point of the act is to CONTAIN the development of nuclear weapons. No western nation is actually going to use nuclear weapons against another country. Would N. Korea use nuclear weapons??? Maybe yes.

My point in that being that no other country would ever be able to have recourse over america because america has nukes and they are not allowed them....

That said i dont want north korea having nukes just to balence it out either

quote:

Originally posted by Az ok over 11,000 people are murdered with guns each year in america whereas the combined total for the UK, Germany, Australia and Canada is below 300....

lemme explain something to you that probably many of you are not familiar with: GANGS. here in america we have bloods vs. crips, and chaps vs. scraps.
these are a bunch of poor people who have tons to be pissed off at. they are forced to live in the projects, they are discriminated against cuz of color, they cant get work, etc. they dont take shit so what do they do? they go fuck up shit! they dont give a fuck who you are if you talk shit then they fuckin shoot you.

Another thing on calling Bush an idiot, stupid etc. Just because he has a different political view than you doesn't make him stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 My point in that being that no other country would ever be able to have recourse over america because america has nukes and they are not allowed them.... That said i dont want north korea having nukes just to balence it out either

But can you see America using nukes? Why would we ever want to? The only time we would ever use nukes is in response to a N. Korean or a chinese nuclear attack. Nuclear weapons are an impractical tool for developed nations to use ... for an underdeveloped nation however, they are perfect for getting what they want.

quote:

Originally posted by Neo nEro Believing that he fixed the elections and the they were fixed are 2 completely different fucking things. until i see some proof that they were fixed, they weren't.

how can i proove that?

can you proove that saddam didnt get 100% of the vote????

of course not - just because something can't be prooved doesnt mean that it wasnt obvious.

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