Deuce 1 #101 September 11, 2003 Kev, he's tripping. Let's just get him something to eat and we'll talk with him later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #102 September 11, 2003 NPR- come on they are to the left of pravda! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #103 September 11, 2003 QuoteNPR- come on they are to the left of pravda! While that is close to accurate, they are very left wing (not quite pravda), what does NPR producing an audio version of a story that appears on MSN about a book written by Gerald Posner have to do with anything? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #104 September 12, 2003 QuoteIraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. According to an August Washington Post poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans believe Iraq played a role. hmmm....here's where I am skeptical. I often don't trust polls anyway, but I wonder about this one. I have met a lot of people who agreed or disagreed with going to war vs. Iraq, but I can't recall meeting anyone who believed Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. (even the Bush administration only made vague hints about it, & never came right out and said that Iraq was involved). Where are they hiding the 70%? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vertifly 0 #105 September 12, 2003 Don't worry Kev; I smoke, I'm offensive, and make sense most of the time. LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #106 September 12, 2003 QuoteSelected Countries Military Budget ($Billions) United States 399.1 (3.2% of GDP) Russia* 65.0 (CIA factbook has no figure) China* 47.0 (FY02 $55.9B, 4.3% of GDP) Japan 42.6 (1.0% of GDP, I believe a consitutional mandate) United Kingdom 38.4 (FY02 $31.7B, 2.32% of GDP) France 29.5 (FY02 $46.5B, 2.57% of GDP) Germany 24.9 (FY02 $38.8B, 1.38% of GDP, I believe a constitutional mandate) Saudi Arabia 21.3 (13% of GDP) Italy 19.4 India 15.6 South Korea 14.1 (2.8% of GDP) NORTH KOREA 5.2B (FY02, 33.9% of GDP) Brazil* 10.7 Taiwan* 10.7 Israel 10.6 Spain 8.4 Australia 7.6 Canada 7.6 Netherlands 6.6 Turkey 5.8 Mexico 5.9 Kuwait* 3.9 Ukraine 5.0 Iran* 4.8 Singapore 4.8 Sweden 4.5 Egypt* 4.4 Norway 3.8 Greece 3.5 Poland 3.5 Argentina* 3.3 United Arab Emirates* 3.1 Colombia* 2.9 Belgium 2.7 Pakistan* 2.6 Denmark 2.4 Vietnam 2.4 North Korea* 2.1 Your made a limite point, all told, our expenditure is proportional to our GDP and role we play in geo-politics. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #107 September 12, 2003 Just remember I personally didn't say that, nor did I even quote the Washinton Post, but rather just pointed the way . . .quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #108 September 12, 2003 Quote Nice try, but hey, gotta go trainning for towel head season....Nice talking to u... you may enjoy hearing yourself speak but it is obvious from many of your posts in many threads that you are a troll, at best. your behavior has already caused the deletion of a pertinent thread. your persisten expressions of bigotry and racism are not welcome here. leave please.namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #109 September 12, 2003 Gawain for California Governor!!!!! _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,062 #110 September 12, 2003 QuoteQuoteSo, America invaded Iraq to teach SA a lesson. Well that makes it perfectly justifiable. WMD's or not.. HE committed genocide against his own people.. It needed to happen.. Simple.. North Korea is next.. Their defense spending increases 17% a year.. Rhino 17% of not much is still not much. Which country spends more on its military than the next 8 countries COMBINED?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #111 September 12, 2003 Quote 17% of not much is still not much. good point, proffesor. lol. and we are not going to korea. that is just silly.namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #112 September 12, 2003 QuoteYour made a limite point, all told, our expenditure is proportional to our GDP and role we play in geo-politics. Yeah, I corrected that a little further down. But that's also a limited view. The percentage of GDP doesn't produce weapons or train troops. If I spent 100% of my GDP on weapons, I couldn't take on Mexico (maybe Canada ). Not defending their ridiculous military posturing, but you have to look at all sides of an issue to understand it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #113 September 12, 2003 Quoteand we are not going to korea. that is just silly. Well, less silly in a way then invading Iraq. They are in some ways more dangerous then Iraq... 1) They are developing or have nuclear weapons and would sell them (they are selling weapons now to anyone who pays). 2) Their leader is is quite disturbed and would most likely use nuclear weapons if under pressure. 3) NK is killing its own people by the thousands through starvation all the time 4) They have no "limits" - the Australians caught a NK ship with an NK official on board unloading a big shipment of Heroin in Australia a couple of month ago - anything for some $ 5) While spending not much in $ on military, they have one of the largest armies in the world (number of soldiers) I think it is about one million - if I remember correctly. NK is a real problem for the region. But the current US administration wont risk too much on this - no oil there. Invading would also be stupid - it would lead to a blood bath in both NK and SK. Difficult situation and wont get easier.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #114 September 12, 2003 So I guess the Korea war never happened? Or you just want proof? Oh!, that's right, it has been presented by fox news, so it is not true...."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #115 September 12, 2003 exactly. it is silly to think that there will be anything but a political exchange with NK. they learned how to deal with the US a long time ago. hurry up, get a nuke, and point it at the US. just my simpleminded conclusions. no need to flame. it is not proven. i have no sources. i do not even claim plausibility. i'm not actually sure i believe me.namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #116 September 12, 2003 QuoteBut the current US administration wont risk too much on this - no oil there. Sorry guy, but that just isn't the case. There is a real difference between NK and Iraq. Obviously their armies are different, and it wouldn't shock the shit out of anyone if NK Nuked itself if we invaded. The US administration isn't going to walk our soldiers into certain death. Now, if you think we aren't doing anything about NK then again you are wrong. But the major problem here is that NK is trying to get what it wants from the US by threatening us with Nuclear war. As bad as you think the USA is (and I know you do) this is something that we have never done unprovoked. I equate NK to a little spoiled child. I wouldn't give in either. All we can do is watch them, let them rant and rave and say what they will. Now, if they are ever stupid enough to lob a weapon at the US, China, SK, or Japan ... Well, I fear that would be a bad mistake for the eastern hemisphere. (The west too because the fallout will travel downwind). However, at worst case scenario, NK has a couple Nukes. Their range is only to California or there abouts. So, they launch their 2 nukes wipe out Cali (I wouldn't mind seeing Hollywood Underwater) That is it... Those were their 2 shots. The us wouldn't even need to retaliate with nukes. Japan, Russia, China, the US, England, Spain ETC... Would absolutely destroy that Fucking North Peninsula with every piece of conventional weapontry we've got. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #117 September 12, 2003 Oh no, but there is no EVIDENCE... and of course the Korea war in the 50's never took place right?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #118 September 12, 2003 QuoteHowever, at worst case scenario, NK has a couple Nukes. Their range is only to California or there abouts Well, NK sells weapons, drugs, anything to anybody who pays. So if you were looking for a REAL threat of somebody selling WMD to terrorists for use against the US or it allies - thats your biggest risk. QuoteAs bad as you think the USA is (and I know you do) Good that you know more about what I think then I do. So being critical of the current administration = believing the US is bad. Oh boy.....--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #119 September 12, 2003 QuoteOh no, but there is no EVIDENCE... and of course the Korea war in the 50's never took place right? have you been drinking, juan? wtf are you talking about - again? lmao.namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #120 September 12, 2003 I've coded my own little plug in for dz.com. From now on any response from juanesky to my posts is replaced with: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #121 September 12, 2003 QuoteQuoteOh no, but there is no EVIDENCE... and of course the Korea war in the 50's never took place right? have you been drinking, juan? wtf are you talking about - again? lmao. I'm talking about what Mikkey is implying that the US will not consider NK as a threat and the main reason being that it does not have oil. So, like all you guys thinking half truths at your own convenience to proof whatever you think is right, I needed to remind Mikkey, that in fact Nukes do exist in NK, and that the US has been already involved in an armed conflict with NK. He has so far not responded to that, so I would imagine that he wants proof to those 2 facts. I don't like to get drunk, nor do drugs. It has been my opinion that people that do drugs do in fact become delusional like you though. It is a fact.Have a good one."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #122 September 12, 2003 did you hear something?namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #123 September 12, 2003 hhmmm, so you hear instead of reading..... Just say no."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #124 September 12, 2003 ok juan. ill bite. you are going to have to pay closer attention if you intend to assume an active role in this discussion. mikkey did NOT disclaim NK conflict that is 50 years in the past. mikkey did NOT claim that NK poses no risk. Quite the contrary. Repeatedly. mikkey DID claim that there is no oil in NK. Relatively speaking that is TRUE. and we are not going to execute a preemptive strike against korea. not now, not ever. that would be insanity. AND WTF DOES THE 1950'S NK CONFLICT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? and i have done nothing but refute faulty logic the entire thread. ok. im done. resume trolling.namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #125 September 12, 2003 Quote Nice try, but hey, gotta go trainning for towel head season....Nice talking to u... That one sentence really says it all about you. You never did answer my question though. What would have happened if Mussolini and Franco would not have listened to Hitler? But then again, I would expect a decendant from a Hitler sympathetic family to claim that Spain and Italy stayed sovereign. I come from a family were direct family members fought against the nazis in various different theatres around the world, hence my view is a little different. Nice talking to you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
