Enough talk. Let's start the killing!

**Suzzi** · Feb 15th, 2003, 02:24 PM

I'm a bit confused by why we let the Iraqi's have any weapons at all. I mean, apparently they are allowed to fire missiles that go for 150 miles......

Well, they could easily sell these to Canada, Mexico or Madagasca, and then they would be within striking distance of the USA. I think this is a very dangerous situation and we shouldn't be allowing them to even own knives. Some might argue that they need knives to cut up their pork etc., but I scoff at such remarks. If we civilised them, then they could eat Pizza, and then they would only need those circular pizza cutter thingies. Or they could just buy electric knives, then they would have to stay near power sockets.

**No War!** · Feb 15th, 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Suzzi
Well, they could easily sell these to Canada, Mexico or Madagasca, and then they would be within striking distance of the USA.

There's no need to sell them outside the USA. They can be used by anti-abortus people as well.....

**nishantp** · Feb 15th, 2003, 02:43 PM

Pretty sure everyone knows who you are by now...

**No War!** · Feb 15th, 2003, 03:00 PM

Well, who am I?

Let me give you a hint: I haven't been on Visual Basic Forums before.

**Jamie-Lee** · Feb 15th, 2003, 03:02 PM

this whole thing is like so totally stupid. i don't get it

**No War!** · Feb 15th, 2003, 03:24 PM

I don't understand why there are people supporting ware anyway.

In every *****ing war, innocent people get killed.
So people who support war, support murdering.
So in essence, they are murderers themself.

No-one would want to admit he/she is a murderer, right?

**nishantp** · Feb 15th, 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by No War!
I don't understand why there are people supporting ware anyway.

In every *****ing war, innocent people get killed.
So people who support war, support murdering.
So in essence, they are murderers themself.

No-one would want to admit he/she is a murderer, right?

Lol. That is the most simplistic view point i've ever heard. I suppose that everyone should have let the Nazis take over Europe in order to avoid a war right? Thats good stuff.

You need to come up some other way of getting attention.

**No War!** · Feb 15th, 2003, 04:48 PM

No, I'm just against killing innocent Iraqis.
If Bush really just wanted a change of regime, all they need is a sniper with 10 bullets, for Saddam and his doubles.

But I understand of course, Bush isn't just after change of regime, he's after the oil. And he just wants another Gulf war, to make his father proud of him......

**nishantp** · Feb 15th, 2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by No War!
No, I'm just against killing innocent Iraqis.
If Bush really just wanted a change of regime, all they need is a sniper with 10 bullets, for Saddam and his doubles.

But I understand of course, Bush isn't just after change of regime, he's after the oil. And he just wants another Gulf war, to make his father proud of him......

Once more a very simplistic viewpoint. Oil may well be an issue, but it is far from the only one. The US currently gets 6% of its oil from Iraq. If all they wanted was oil, they would invade Venezuela. The people of that country hate their president (who won't step down).

I generally believe that assassinating Saddam would be the best course of action in the short term...but what kind of precedent would that set? People like you would be the first to say "Who does the US think they are killing the leaders of other countries?"

**Suzzi** · Feb 15th, 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by nishantp

I generally believe that assassinating Saddam would be the best course of action in the short term...but what kind of precedent would that set? People like you would be the first to say "Who does the US think they are killing the leaders of other countries?"

In fairness, it would then open up the point that an Iraqi could legitametly assassinate the US President, and there would appear to be very little recourse in that case..... but I digress.

What about these bloody Kurds! Should we let them have their Way? Or do we need to send in little Miss Muffitt again?

**snakeeyes1000** · Feb 15th, 2003, 07:10 PM

you'd trust them with those pizza cutter things? that's what they want... they're lying, they don't need to eat. they choose to live in a desert, for crying out loud. let em eat the sand

**dogsby** · Feb 15th, 2003, 10:44 PM

We need to make Iraq a huge parking lot. just a few well placed nukes and KAPOW! instant flat land for parking, Or build a big mall or something. Oh by the way, there will be 1000's of american deaths by chemicals/biologicals. Of course the iraqis will be alive since they will surrender like they did in gulf war 1, and america will keep them fed, provide medicine etc, so they can live to kill more people another day.

Dogsby

Nuke em all

**Skitchen8** · Feb 16th, 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by No War!
I don't understand why there are people supporting ware anyway.

In every *****ing war, innocent people get killed.
So people who support war, support murdering.
So in essence, they are murderers themself.

No-one would want to admit he/she is a murderer, right?

i support murdering, i'll gladly admit i support murdering of innocent people... for example the list of people i would like to kill:
neo-nazi's
people who are smarter than me
ugly lesbians
gays
hot lesbians who don't video tape the action
people who sell me ****ty weed laced with dog **** or something (im going to find this ****er)
people who don't like rap

anybody have a gun i can borrow

**Suzzi** · Feb 16th, 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Skitchen8
i support murdering, i'll gladly admit i support murdering of innocent people... for example the list of people i would like to kill:
neo-nazi's
people who are smarter than me
ugly lesbians
gays
hot lesbians who don't video tape the action
people who sell me ****ty weed laced with dog **** or something (im going to find this ****er)
people who don't like rap

oh, and people with more than three vowels in their surname. Smug Bastards!

**vbNeo** · Feb 16th, 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Suzzi
I'm a bit confused by why we let the Iraqi's have any weapons at all. I mean, apparently they are allowed to fire missiles that go for 150 miles......

Well, they could easily sell these to Canada, Mexico or Madagasca, and then they would be within striking distance of the USA. I think this is a very dangerous situation and we shouldn't be allowing them to even own knives. Some might argue that they need knives to cut up their pork etc., but I scoff at such remarks. If we civilised them, then they could eat Pizza, and then they would only need those circular pizza cutter thingies. Or they could just buy electric knives, then they would have to stay near power sockets.

You know what ? That's EXACTLY what we did to german after WW1, and you know how that went ? well PRETTY bad!
Doing that would just help building up a bigger hatred to the western world, thereby making the danger bigger. Trust me, if terrorists wants weapons, they'll get em'!
This isn't a simple as it seems, even though it might looks so!

Cheers !

**Suzzi** · Feb 16th, 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by vbNeo
You know what ? That's EXACTLY what we did to german after WW1, and you know how that went ? well PRETTY bad!
Doing that would just help building up a bigger hatred to the western world, thereby making the danger bigger. Trust me, if terrorists wants weapons, they'll get em'!
This isn't a simple as it seems, even though it might looks so!

Cheers !

Well, if the Germans were that dangerous in WWII with pizza cutters, think how dangerous they would have been if they had access to real weapons? I think we had a lucky escape there. It's just as well we disarmed them.

**vbNeo** · Feb 16th, 2003, 12:59 PM

You know what started WW2 ?? The disarming, Germany became a BIG mess, inflation took over the country, and chaos ruled!
What we was to do with Germany, was to help them rise from "the filth" and make them work again.
Which we also did after WW2. BUT what i'm trying to say is, total disarming won't help, it'll just make the situation worse

Cheers !

**Suzzi** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by vbNeo
You know what started WW2 ?? The disarming, Germany became a BIG mess, inflation took over the country, and chaos ruled!
What we was to do with Germany, was to help them rise from "the filth" and make them work again.
Which we also did after WW2. BUT what i'm trying to say is, total disarming won't help, it'll just make the situation worse

Cheers !

But, if, as you say we had disarmed the Germans, how could they bomb Pearl Harbour? Where did they get the planes from?

**vbNeo** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:31 PM

Don't you know ANY history!?
THE JAPANS BOMBED PEARL HARBOR !!!
Germany used SPADES to train there soldiers !

Cheers!

**Suzzi** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by vbNeo
Don't you know ANY history!?
THE JAPANS BOMBED PEARL HARBOR !!!
Germany used SPADES to train there soldiers !

Cheers!

Did they? Oh, sorry, I never knew that.

If the Germans where armed with Spades, why didn't the allies just shoot them from a distance before they got close enough to "spade" them.

**vbNeo** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:38 PM

Maybe you should have listened a "little" more in the history lessons ay ?
Well, germany was allowed to have about 1000 weapons... They then trained 1000 of that times "Marines" and actually invaded another country, that gave them a bigger supply of weapons to take on a new country and so on.

Cheers !

**mendhak** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:39 PM

There's something not right about this, but I can't tell what.

**Anony** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by vbNeo
Maybe you should have listened a "little" more in the history lessons ay ?
Well, germany was allowed to have about 1000 weapons... They then trained 1000 of that times "Marines" and actually invaded another country, that gave them a bigger supply of weapons to take on a new country and so on.

Cheers !

So they invaded poland with a thousand shovels ?

**vbNeo** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:44 PM

READ what i wrote, they had 1 thousand RIFLES

Cheers!

**Suzzi** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by vbNeo
They then trained 1000 of that times "Marines" and actually invaded another country

Oh, thanks I never knew that either. What country did they invade. I always thought that Germany was part of mainland Europe (though I could be wrong). So why would they use Marines and not soldiers to attack a neighbouring country. Or was this when they conquered Britain (that used to be an island didn't it?)

**Anony** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:45 PM

Then why would they use shovels to train their soldiers ? Digging up old ammunition ? On the spot brain surgery ? Or whack an unsuspecting ally tank into submission ?

Some things are not clear here ...

**vbNeo** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Suzzi
Oh, thanks I never knew that either. What country did they invade. I always thought that Germany was part of mainland Europe (though I could be wrong). So why would they use Marines and not soldiers to attack a neighbouring country. Or was this when they conquered Britain (that used to be an island didn't it?)

Well the marines were tougher and better, much better trained for warfare, than the standard German soldier, and they never invaded britain. Britain was the last free country in Europe when US FINALLY arrived, hehe

Cheers

**vbNeo** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Anony
Then why would they use shovels to train their soldiers ? Digging up old ammunition ? On the spot brain surgery ? Or whack an unsuspecting ally tank into submission ?

Some things are not clear here ...

They trained a big army with the spades BEFORE they got weapons, so they would actually have a fully trained and big army done when they would have access to real weapons

Cheers !

**Anony** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:49 PM

the marines never invaded Britain ? Then who did ? Wasn't there that bit with spitting fire and Mrs. Smith ?

**Skitchen8** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by vbNeo
You know what started WW2 ?? The disarming, Germany became a BIG mess, inflation took over the country, and chaos ruled!
What we was to do with Germany, was to help them rise from "the filth" and make them work again.
Which we also did after WW2. BUT what i'm trying to say is, total disarming won't help, it'll just make the situation worse

Cheers !

one flaw in your logic there, because the whole world ignored what should have started WW2 earlier because germany was important to the world. We didn't help rearm them, we gave them the funding to do it themselves, and we helped them not only because we felt they needed help, but because of the fact that world needed them because they were between the democratic nations and the communist russian empire. They acted as a bumper, so france and britian figured that germany should be allowed a little more land if they want, because they are the only thing keeping russia from them

**Suzzi** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:51 PM

I could have sworn that Britain got invaded. Wasn't it the first time since that chap called Norman invaded in 1066?

**vbNeo** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:52 PM

They didn't invade britain!
The got a heck of a lot V1 bombs in, but the spits(SpitFire's some of the fastest and most agile planes at the time) got most of them. Germany developed V2 however, which blew the half of London to bits!

Cheers !

**Skitchen8** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by vbNeo
Well the marines were tougher and better, much better trained for warfare, than the standard German soldier, and they never invaded britain. Britain was the last free country in Europe when US FINALLY arrived, hehe

Cheers

and another correction, Sweden never got taken, along with a few other non-vital countries in Europe, when hitler enacted his plan for world domination, after all the world powers got taken over, he would conquer the rest of the countries, or they would submit before blitzkrieg could make them...

**vbNeo** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Suzzi
I could have sworn that Britain got invaded. Wasn't it the first time since that chap called Norman invaded in 1066?

BRITAIN DID NOT GET INVADED !!!!!!!!
I'm sure of this !

Cheers !

**vbNeo** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Skitchen8
and another correction, Sweden never got taken, along with a few other non-vital countries in Europe, when hitler enacted his plan for world domination, after all the world powers got taken over, he would conquer the rest of the countries, or they would submit before blitzkrieg could make them...

Well Sweden was neutral, and not a target for the Nazi germany because they didn't pose a threat, but almost all of the resisting europe got invaded

Cheers !

**Anony** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Skitchen8
one flaw in your logic there, because the whole world ignored what should have started WW2 earlier because germany was important to the world. We didn't help rearm them, we gave them the funding to do it themselves, and we helped them not only because we felt they needed help, but because of the fact that world needed them because they were between the democratic nations and the communist russian empire. They acted as a bumper, so france and britian figured that germany should be allowed a little more land if they want, because they are the only thing keeping russia from them

That's right ! Just like that neigbourhood bully who smashed the warehouse. I didn't do it, I wasn't even there but I handed him the bricks.
Can't blame me for him chucking them through windows, can you ?

**Skitchen8** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:56 PM

Britain did not get invaded, though it did get attacked the germans had not yet entered britain and attempted an attack, which they would have surely won

**vbNeo** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Skitchen8
one flaw in your logic there, because the whole world ignored what should have started WW2 earlier because germany was important to the world. We didn't help rearm them, we gave them the funding to do it themselves, and we helped them not only because we felt they needed help, but because of the fact that world needed them because they were between the democratic nations and the communist russian empire. They acted as a bumper, so france and britian figured that germany should be allowed a little more land if they want, because they are the only thing keeping russia from them

Well i cannot argue with that, as you are completeky right !
Still i do not think a total disarming of iraq(which is kinda impossible by the way) would help, just make the situation worse. We do not have a Communist pressure theese days

(we'll execpt north korea

)

**Anony** · Feb 16th, 2003, 01:59 PM

eh ? Who won what now ?

**vbNeo** · Feb 16th, 2003, 02:01 PM

The allies AND russia won WW2, and that's when the cold war started out, europe was to be divided!

Cheers !

Thread: Enough talk. Let's start the killing!

Thread Tools

Display

Enough talk. Let's start the killing!

Re: Enough talk. Let's start the killing!

Re: Enough talk. Let's start the killing!

Re: Re: Enough talk. Let's start the killing!

well

Re: well

ehh !?

Re: ehh !?

hehe

Re: hehe

no

Re: hehe

Re: Re: hehe

well

Re: well

Well

Re: Re: Re: hehe

well

Re: Re: Re: Re: hehe

Re: Re: well

Re: Re: well

Well

Posting Permissions