random guy

Well, if you guys are going to take that stance, I'll politely step aside from this discussion. Have fun at your next KKK meetings, you goddamn bigots! (okay, not so polite, but f*ck it).

I've built up an immunity to radiation, so I think I could live pretty well no matter what was nuked. Assuming I still have food and shelter and etc... Damnit people - nuking is not an option here! Didn't anyone learn anything after Hiroshima? Don't you guys understand that now that Bush has started this war by claiming that Iraq had WMDs, and after over a year with only finding a tiny cannister of 15-year old sarin gas, Bush can't then ATTACK IRAQ WITH WMD's!!! That's rediculous

Simple Minds - don't you (forget about me)

Bah! Thats just a stereotype. Most gays are normal in everyway, unless your in Hollywood, because thats the place where stereotypes come alive. WTF?! I see these be'otches at school and even have classes with some, and what gets me is whenever somebody says they're gay or asks if they're gay they never respond. I think it's the "BI's" that get to me, or the gays, I dont know. You still haven't explained to me why it's okay to be homophobic if it's not okay to be racist. But anyway, -violence- is probably just like one of those people we described - and he's one of the coolest people here! Why can violence 'camp it up' on this forum, but they can't act camp at school?

Explain to me what the difference is between being prejudiced against gays, and being prejudiced against for ex. black people? That's what I'm saying - you wouldn't agree to being racist, so why are you so happy to be openly biggoted against homosexuals? In my eyes there's no difference - if we're going to create a world where everyone truly is equal there can be no prejudice against anybody regardless of their colour, race, religion, political views, sexual preference or any other niggling personality trait. Sure, you can defend yourself by saying 'it's okay to hate', but no-one would think it was okay if you posted crap on a message board saying, 'those niggers really piss me off', so it shouldn't be okay for you to post crap like 'those faggots really piss me off'!

What the hell? See, that just proves my point: the only connection I can fathom between Malaysia and bin Laden/al Qaeda is the Muslim connection. Well, that's just a disguistingly shameful example of stereotyping - Bush is basically calling Malaysia a terrorist hotspot only because the predominant religion is Islam! Isn't there some major terrorist organization in Malaysia or is that just in Indonesia? I remember that bombing that killed a whole bunch of Australians but I can't remember if it was Indonesia or Malaysia. Which one is it? I hope one you of knows... But South East Asia is apparantly becoming a hot spot for terrorism. The 9/11 attacks were originally meant to be a world wide attack including those two towers in Malaysia. It was in Bali. And explain to me how SE Asia is becoming a 'hotspot for terrorism'. Your original explaination doesn't make any sense - if Malaysia was going to be attacked in a terrorism attack, that doesn't make them terrorists, that makes them targets. The US did get attacked, does that make them a 'hotspot for terrorism'? No no, I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying what I've seen on the happy unbiased news. And they were going to use some Malaysian sect of al Qaeda as far as I know. And so what if they're Malaysian, they'll still attack their own country because they're terrorists. You know...sometimes you just get really defensive that it gets extremely funny. This world doesn't revolve around peace. It never has and it never will. There will always be war. There will always be one side that wants to dominate another side. To even think that peace has a chance is just really funny. I don't get defensive, I get mad! I don't get mad AT anybody (seriously guys, anything I say, don't take it personal. It may seem like I'm attack your beliefs your values, and your opinions, but I'm not I'm just presenting my opinions on those views), but this war can never be justified! There are no two sides to the story - on the one hand, there was an evil, megalomaniacal dictator hell-bent on world domination, and on the other there was Saddam Hussein ( I kill me!). Yes, Hussein was a pretty nasty chap, but the Iraqis have it alot worse now than they did previously (I suppose there IS some degree of equality - they're all getting tortured equally under coalition rule), there is no justification for this war - lets look at things, number one there were supposed to be WMDs - none were found (and yes I know they found a tiny little cylinder full of sarin gas from before the Gulf War, big deal), and even if there were weapons, Iraq was perfectly hapy to let UN weapons inspectors in, but no that wasn't enough for Bush... this new justification is 'Saddam was a bad man, the Iraqis are suffernig'. Well, guess what, now they're suffering worse. Aaargh, can't you see why I get mad when people try to defend this war? There is no defence, the reason was this war would economically advantage bush and his enron pals...and as a result tens of thousands of people have died. To put it another way, I feel so strongly I can see the perspective of the monk who imolated himself as protest of the Iraq war - although I don't think I'll be doing it myself any time soon, I kind of like my skin being unburnt! Yeah, but the thing is that Bush stupidly got the US and other nations in this mess and pretty much flocked over Iraq. But it is still this coalition's responsibility to set things right. They made the mistake and they must fix it. Sure we don't have to agree with the war and think its completely pointless (I don't agree with the war and think its completely pointless) but that does not excuse any country from backing out of its obligation. I think Bush should come out and say "Ok guys, I flocked up. We shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq but now we cannot quit and must stay the course because it is the decent thing to do. Creating a stable government for the Iraqis is the responsibility of not just America but for the entire world so I have decided to make the UN an integral part of the rebuilding, government creating, and security operations. I apologize to the families of lost soldiers in Iraq, but I would also like to apologize to the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed, livihoods destroyed, and humiliated. And because of this, I have decided to commit seppuku by shoving a folded frisbee in my mouth during this live press conference. Haha just kidding *annoying smug smirk*, let's roll." No country can just pick up and leave now, that country is far to unstable. And I can't believe that the US is still gunning for the June 30th handover...what a bunch of arrogant stubborn bastards. Bush was wrong to go to war with Iraq but now that we're there we can't just quit. That's all I'm saying. And L.S.D, I wasn't attacking your country, its people or its policy. I was just stating what I saw on this PBS special on terrorism. Good point, but on the other hand, saying that pulling out would be a disaster is not putting much faith in the Iraqi people. Again I'll use the analogy - if it was the US that had been invaded and had its leader deposed, would you rather it was your own countrymen or the occupying country that chose your next leadership? I don't think that if this had happened in a technologically industrialised world (eg. the West, pretty much), it would be expected that any other country than the one which had been invaded would choose their new leader. That said, I am aware that Iraq is in a fair mess right now - divided into three religious-based groups united only by a hatred of the occupying army. That said, given that the Bush government has made a shambles out of invading the country, I don't think it should be up to them to choose Iraq's next Government (so, yes, including the UN would be a big step forward, another good point).

You don't think that might be because...hmm...um...THE IRAQIS DON'T WANT THE COALITION THERE!!!!??! Because the coalition armies have been bombing hospitals, torturing Iraqi civilians, and they've reduced their country to rubble pretty much, meaning that people have to walk for two hours just to find clean water? What did you expect - that they'd welcome you with open arms? Don't make me laugh - like I've said, coalition armies INVADED, not LIBERATED Iraq, they are currently OCCUPYING thE COUNTRY! Let me put it this way - if Hussein had come in and 'liberated' the US from Bush, how welcome do you think HIS forces would be in the US????? And the Romans died out because they used lead piping for their plumbing systems - so they all turned insane becuase drinking water that's run through lead makes you go all crazy-like (why do you think one Emperor ordered his armies to declare war on posiedon - by throwing their spears into the sea?)

Uh huh...interesting. Well looks like we have a bigot amongst us. Why is he a bigeot? It's not wrong to hate. I dont think it's wrong to hate, heck im all for it, but to do something to somebody else becuase of " whatever you see on T.V. classifing hate crimes" now that just wrong. You can't take away a persons right to hate cuz thats like taking a persons only REAL freedom. Im not saying hate is right im just saying it should be a personal freedom as long as it's kept in ones own personal mental form. Whenever i see gay people I see one of 2 things. 1. Life has failed them and I look down at them with sorrow, or 2. They have failed life as "that" gender and still looked down opon them with pity. If you're gay please keep that shitake mushrooms to yourself, nobody gives a flying ful< if you love D**k. The U.S. has enough BS on it's hands and doesnt need any of yours, literally. Looks like we got too bigots. Anyone who hates gay people's probably insecure about their sexuality. furthermore, what you said is bull-crap Cominus - are you saying no-one should have told hitler not to hate the jews? see what happened there? Hate is evil, hate leads to terrible things, and so people don't have, in my view, the 'right to hate'. You guys are going to have to get over your tiny little prejudices, and learn to truly accept homosexuality, rather than just saying 'oh, you can be gay, just don't be gay near me!' that's bull-crap and again I repeat, anyone who doesn'tt like gays is probably battling with feelings of being gay themselves.

Buy a new HDD or burn some of your stuff, that'll solve it. All my IDE cables are being used by other types of drives! NOES! I'll try and get a SATA or a EIDE card so I can have more HDDs (SATA for two, very nice 250gb hdds I've had my eye on for a while = totalling 500GB! With my current hard drives, I'll have 700 gb! COME ON MONEH!) Oh noes! My senses tell me to expect serious money shortage from your part. Hell yeah dude. My money = down the drain once I get everything. I'm selling parts of my room to pay for it You've gotta think to yourself...do you need all four walls?

why not? are they perfect? an army is made up of individuls, and a good pecentage of the people the military attracts are the testosterone fueled bullies, who would do such things. if the austrailian army is free of opertunistic bullies. good for you guys! but I don't buy it. and the USA isn't trying to raise an empire. if that were the case it would make much more sense to take bordering countries and grow outwards a US state halfway across the world in a god forsaken desert doesn't make sense. and would never be safe. Is the US trying to secure it's influance in the middle east? Of course it is. edit in: i've got a plane to catch, i'll talk to you guys when i get to AZ. hopefully by then all this political stuff is out of your systems Of course, that's what Ive been trying to say all along! But it makes perfect sense for America to choose Iraq as the first country to start its empire building. For two reasons - one, as I already mentioned in that other thread, the world's running out of oil, and the Middle East has 3 times the oil the west does. And two, due to the current political climate, Muslims are in very low favour with the common American right now, so the Bush administration probably assumed that people wouldn't kick up much fuss if an Islamic country was invaded. PS and the orders to torture the prisoners came from the top teir of Government, so it makes no difference which 'individuals' armies are made up of. PPS enjoy your trip!

Bullshit. I have no love for my army, but there's no way in hell they'd strip prisoners naked and put them in sexual poses then take photographs of them. There's no way in the world they would put a bag over someone's head for over 72 hours. And like you should understand by now, I don't hate America,I don't hate Americans (I don't hate any of you guys), I hate the American government and army, i hate American imperialism and the fact that the government is trying to raise an empire, and I hate this war. PS If you think the things I say about bush and his government is bad, you should hear what I say about our prime minister and his cronies!

...I know it's happened, but at least the 'allieds' and the 'axis' had international laws to abide by - meaning that if someone bombed a hospital, there was at least a chance of them being punished. And that means that there were at least guidelines in place for not torturing POWs. Unlike the American army for both counts.

Ha ha, good point...everybody loves lesbians! So what have you guys got against gay men?

There are rules of engagement. There are international wartime laws. There are conventions and protocols, and guarantee that never ONCE on any of these documents do they say that bombing hospitals is okay. But of course, that doesn't matter to the US because they refuse to follow any laws with their war-fighting at all - not even the Geneva Protocol...meaning they can, and as we have seen, do torture POWs. Well, there have been wars throughout history, but civilized people, as opposed to people with merely a (prone to mistakes, as we saw time and time again) technological advantage, DON'T BOMB HOSPITALS!

come on is this buck rogers? there is no satillite that can see through hospital walls or 100 feet of dirt rocks and concrete. if there were then we wouldn't have the landmine problem that we do in eastern europe, and asia. that is propaganda. and it is a normal part of war. Then why did the US bomb all those hospitals based on satellite technology? How can they justify all those deaths? 'Oh whoops, it turns out we couldn't see through those buildings anyway, our bad. Guess we were looking through an open building the whole time during tests. Heeyuk!'

it's already a known fact that there is a maze of underground tunnels all over iraq. not to mention they could just bury the crap in the desert and we'd never find it. did the un sanction shovels and back-hoes? not even mentioning the network of saddam sympathisers could have easily moved anything to anywhere they want. that's been proven in the way they smuggled saddam his sons and high ranking officials for months befoer we started to catch up to them. remember wmd doesn't mean a huge nuke. suitcase sized chemical or biological bombs are what we are talking about here. But LSD made a good point there; if the US Military felt that their advanced satellite technology was good enough to find these WMDs, even though that meant they ended up bombing hospitals because presumably they saw weapon-like or weapon-making-like things, they should be able to detect things in the desert.

What the hell? See, that just proves my point: the only connection I can fathom between Malaysia and bin Laden/al Qaeda is the Muslim connection. Well, that's just a disguistingly shameful example of stereotyping - Bush is basically calling Malaysia a terrorist hotspot only because the predominant religion is Islam! Isn't there some major terrorist organization in Malaysia or is that just in Indonesia? I remember that bombing that killed a whole bunch of Australians but I can't remember if it was Indonesia or Malaysia. Which one is it? I hope one you of knows... But South East Asia is apparantly becoming a hot spot for terrorism. The 9/11 attacks were originally meant to be a world wide attack including those two towers in Malaysia. It was in Bali. And explain to me how SE Asia is becoming a 'hotspot for terrorism'. Your original explaination doesn't make any sense - if Malaysia was going to be attacked in a terrorism attack, that doesn't make them terrorists, that makes them targets. The US did get attacked, does that make them a 'hotspot for terrorism'? No no, I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying what I've seen on the happy unbiased news. And they were going to use some Malaysian sect of al Qaeda as far as I know. And so what if they're Malaysian, they'll still attack their own country because they're terrorists. You know...sometimes you just get really defensive that it gets extremely funny. This world doesn't revolve around peace. It never has and it never will. There will always be war. There will always be one side that wants to dominate another side. To even think that peace has a chance is just really funny. I don't get defensive, I get mad! I don't get mad AT anybody (seriously guys, anything I say, don't take it personal. It may seem like I'm attack your beliefs your values, and your opinions, but I'm not I'm just presenting my opinions on those views), but this war can never be justified! There are no two sides to the story - on the one hand, there was an evil, megalomaniacal dictator hell-bent on world domination, and on the other there was Saddam Hussein ( I kill me!). Yes, Hussein was a pretty nasty chap, but the Iraqis have it alot worse now than they did previously (I suppose there IS some degree of equality - they're all getting tortured equally under coalition rule), there is no justification for this war - lets look at things, number one there were supposed to be WMDs - none were found (and yes I know they found a tiny little cylinder full of sarin gas from before the Gulf War, big deal), and even if there were weapons, Iraq was perfectly hapy to let UN weapons inspectors in, but no that wasn't enough for Bush... this new justification is 'Saddam was a bad man, the Iraqis are suffernig'. Well, guess what, now they're suffering worse. Aaargh, can't you see why I get mad when people try to defend this war? There is no defence, the reason was this war would economically advantage bush and his enron pals...and as a result tens of thousands of people have died. To put it another way, I feel so strongly I can see the perspective of the monk who imolated himself as protest of the Iraq war - although I don't think I'll be doing it myself any time soon, I kind of like my skin being unburnt!

Big deal, they found one tiny 15-year old shell that would do bugger all damage on the weaponfield. That's hardly a Weapon of Mass Destruction. The article even says the guys who planted it probably didn't even know it had sarin gas in it (if it even is sarin gas). This thing probably fell behind a cupboard or something years ago. I'm also open to the possibility that this had been planted - I believe the phrase 'Wag the Dog' has been mentioned here recently...?

What the hell? See, that just proves my point: the only connection I can fathom between Malaysia and bin Laden/al Qaeda is the Muslim connection. Well, that's just a disguistingly shameful example of stereotyping - Bush is basically calling Malaysia a terrorist hotspot only because the predominant religion is Islam! Isn't there some major terrorist organization in Malaysia or is that just in Indonesia? I remember that bombing that killed a whole bunch of Australians but I can't remember if it was Indonesia or Malaysia. Which one is it? I hope one you of knows... But South East Asia is apparantly becoming a hot spot for terrorism. The 9/11 attacks were originally meant to be a world wide attack including those two towers in Malaysia. It was in Bali. And explain to me how SE Asia is becoming a 'hotspot for terrorism'. Your original explaination doesn't make any sense - if Malaysia was going to be attacked in a terrorism attack, that doesn't make them terrorists, that makes them targets. The US did get attacked, does that make them a 'hotspot for terrorism'?

Not to mention the monk that lit himself on fire. Oh man...I saw that dude in my history book...ouch... You've heard my opinion on Iraq before. And I'm truthfully starting to want the place nuked. It's getting really annoying. I've heard we're pulling out of there June 30th though, one can only hope. Don't you start on that rediculous train of thought! Explain to me why the hell Iraq deserves to be nuked because your government (and a coalition of other armies) invaded them? Oh I'm sorry if you're being annoyed at all the tales of bloodshed and torture and destruction, at the loss of lives on both sides of the war, at the fact that there have been something like double the number of coalition casualties since AFTER the war was officially declared over - that doesn't make you think that maybe this was an unjust war, perhaps! The more media coverage of this brutal charade of an occupation the better, as the more it becomes clear that this war is a disaster, has nothing to do with terrorism, and that the ongoing military presence in Iraq is a disgrace (and the more proof that I, as well as the thousands of other dissenters, knew what was going to happen from the start (ie that this would be a disaster, would esculate, that Bush's claims that the war was about WMD would turn out to be fake, and that Bush would stop looking for bin Laden because of this stupid war, which, whether you want to believe it was really about US expansionalism, or securing more oil for the US, you cannot deny that Bush and his enron cronies are getting rich off of the suffering of both innocent Iraqi civilians, and our coallition soldiers over in Iraq. Really, by your logic, it is the US that deserves to be nuked. Now I know you're going to say 'how dare you say that!', but how dare you say Iraq should be nuked? It's exactly the same thing. PS I'm not saying that America should be nuked, I'm saying that no-one should be nuked.

I doubt it - the US Gov't wants to set up 14 permanent army bases in Iraq! You probably heard that the American government promised to pull their troops out of Iraq if the government they set up there asks them to. May seem admirable of them - except that the US plan to set up a government in Iraq that will NEVER ask them to leave! Our Prime Minister recently said he hoped that the Iraq conflict doesn't last as long as the cold war. The cold war lasted 44 years. Face it, our countries' troops (there are still Australians over there also) are in there for the long haul.

That's very true - the only psychological argument you could quote for opposing homosexuality is 'survival of the fittest' - homosexuals don't breed, therefore technically they're maladaptive as they don't ensure the survival of the fittest. However, in a situation like the one humanity has created for itself, where the world is actually overcrowded, and at least two people are born for every one person that dies, that ceases to be a problem. It has actually shown that one of the characteristics we share with apes/monkeys etc... is that we and they have sex for pleasure, not just for reproduction. Therefore it is believed that some aspect of higher-brain functioning that we share with monkeys is responsible for our desire to have sex just for pleasure. In other words, we've evolved past the need to ensure the survival of the species, and our instincts have involved too. You cannot say that homosexuality is wrong beccause it doesn't appear in most species - most species don't have the luxury to have sex for pleasure, they're just doing it to mate. I agree that you can't compare humans to animals, for a number of reasons. For one thing, we don't piss all over our house to mark our territory! ps I didn't mean that apes and humans had sex together for pleasure, I meant that apes have sex with members of their own species for pleaure, and humans have sex with other humans for pleasure as well!

If we are really a terrorist haven, the US Embassy will be the first one we torched down. Americans, if u all have some sense, just vote out Bush and bring back all the innocent soldiers. U can't really blame the soldiers for doing those horrible torture acts. SOmetimes, pressure and the longing to go home can drove people mad and do unnthinkable acts. THe Vietnam War have a lot of examples to this. DO you Americans really want another Nam? Funny you mention the Vietnam War, because this current "War on Terror" has some striking similarities to America's involvement in Vietnam. Of course, this will never be pointed out or discussed in mass media. One of our intelligence officers actually got in sh*t recently for comparing Iraq to the Vietnam war. That was mentioned in the news for a while. I think Rumsfeld even came out and backed him up too - but I guess that wasn't reported in the US.

Maybe he was trying to make it left-handed. Although, I'm left-handed, and I'd prefer to have the joystick on the left and the buttons on the right, so I dunno.

What the hell? See, that just proves my point: the only connection I can fathom between Malaysia and bin Laden/al Qaeda is the Muslim connection. Well, that's just a disguistingly shameful example of stereotyping - Bush is basically calling Malaysia a terrorist hotspot only because the predominant religion is Islam!