Tendo City

Mapel sends this with her good wishes. She thought it would be a good idea for me to be able to laugh at myself :)

It's true! There is a link there!

Oh, and while laughing at the self...

Quote:Saddam Enrages Bush With Full Compliance
WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush expressed frustration and anger Monday over a U.N. report stating that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is now fully complying with weapons inspections. "Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."

From http://www.Theonion.com

And I already showed this to lazy and ABF but...

I only wish that the reason Bush is so dumb would be as simple as the Ring of Power...

Oh yeah, and that pic Weltall posted is great... so true... :)

Every post in this thread made me laugh. Except ABF's. You aren't funny at all.

Nope, just realistic...



Its a sequel to this 1991 cartoon...



Better?

Whoa! Look at Bush Sr's head in the first panel. It's normal. Then LOOK AT THE SECOND AND THIRD PANELS!! AAAAGH! HE'S GROWN INTO A GIANT!!!! And then he goes back to normal.... *whew*!

Quote:Originally posted by DMiller
Every post in this thread made me laugh. Except ABF's. You aren't funny at all.

Liberals aren't allowed to have a sense of humor. That's why everything offends them. Thus, the ACLU exists.

Uh huh. Right... I doubt you actually believe that so I won't say much... especially how I posted those two cartoons which, IMO, are both funny AND true... just like the other two posted, actually... :)

I never knew we had so many hate-mongering democrats in here.

Hey now! Weltall is as republican a fellow as I've known in a long time. He's just having a fun time making fun of himself. It's the latest rage. Drew Cary does it all the time! Really, self depreciating humor is the BEST way to avoid using what you know to be terrible social skills and instead make yourself popular via your own fear of your inadiquacy! Try it!

I gotta say it's sad about the whole teaming thing in our republican democracy (that's actually exactly what our form of government is, since a TRUE democracy is TOTALLY run by the people, like Athens). What's the point of these silly parties anyway? People end up supporting all sorts of stuff they may not agree with just because of a few points they do agree with. You end up with a very limited selection, and often it's the lesser of two evils you end up picking. Now, I know I'm being very cynical here, and I apologize for sounding like some disenfranchised teen (I hate them as much as you :D), but I really think the best way to go about voting is to totally ignore "parties" and to just analyze the candidates on an individual level. Ignore the parties for a moment, and look at exactly what they have stated are their opinions and goals and such. I must say I'm non-partisan lance myself. ABF, you may think I'm republican, but it's just by chance that one party happens to agree with a number of my stances. I'll tell you this, although I've debated the opposite (because I love arguing for the sake of argument), I actually do think the environment should be protected. While I do believe the environment isn't nearly as bad as some say, and while I don't think a few oil pumps would totally ruin a nature reserve (though I could be way off there, I have no idea how much stuff needs to be cut down to make way for a couple drills), I also think that when God sent us to have dominion over the Earth, He never intended for us to be wife beating drunkerds about how we do it. I will also say I do believe it is a bit of ego to say we can so easily destroy it. Even if we do make the planet uninhabitable by US, we just did the Earth a favor right? It can then go onwards to evolve super smart spiders who round up the last mammals as cattle.

Um... you aren't a Republican, you just agree with them on pretty much every single issue? Yeah right...

As for parties, yeah, they aren't the greatest thing and they do mean that you end up either voting for the lesser of two evils or voting for someone who doesn't have any possible chance of winning... but representative democracy (or a republic, as its more accurately called) is really the only way to run a big country... you can't have all the citizens voting on everything once the population gets above a few tens of thousands... like with town meetings. They are common (well, in New England at least...), but only in small to midsized towns... the bigger towns all have elected town councils or mayors because above a certain size town meetings just don't work anymore.

I'm a conservative republican. I'm better than you.

The party system actually is good for a reason, it gives a balance. Total democracy would mean allowing ANYONE to represent us, no matter how minor. That would inevitably lead to anarchy.

The system is flawed, but it works better than anything else. How many other representative governments have had over two hundred years of almost constant stability?

The party system just divides people and lumps them into groups. Both sides have their strengths and weaknesses, so why do people have to choose one side or the other? That's ridiculous.

Well technically anyone COULD represent us, it's just that the whole social aspect of these parties kinda gets in the way of that happening. Oh, and allowing ANYONE to represent us should indeed be allowed. It wouldn't lead to anarchy, because people still have to go through the legal channels to get voted in, and more importantly they have to win the election. I don't see the problem.

As for you saying "yeah right" ABF, like I said I just happen to agree on a good number of issues. I wouldn't even say I agree. I wasn't even aware that a lot of what I thought was their opinion until a few years ago when I read up on it. If they suddenly changed their minds on some issues, I wouldn't suddenly shift my view to accomidate, like a good number of partisans would. I don't really sympathize with them either. I find both parties to be blockers myself. I really don't like how they have these pre-rounds going on where presidential candidates FIRST have to win a contest to get the right to represent a party. That just takes out even more of the competition due to an unfair decider who isn't me.

Who was that old racist guy that wanted to run for president and was featured on the Daily Show way back when?

I probably missed the racist stuff he commented on, but I know who you speak of. That was a great sketch they did :D.

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
Who was that old racist guy that wanted to run for president and was featured on the Daily Show way back when?

Strom Thurman. He's the guy who's birthday party was the site of Trent Lott's reputation suicide.

No no, this was a nobody that was featured on the Daily Show a while back.

Quote:Originally posted by Dark Jaguar
I probably missed the racist stuff he commented on, but I know who you speak of. That was a great sketch they did :D.

Don't you remember when he went into that Native American store and told the clerk something along the lines of "heh, remember when those Cowboys shot up all you Injuns?".

Oh well. But Strom Thurman is an old racist guy who ran for president.

That is true...
Except you're talking about Strom Thurmond. :)

No I guess I missed that episode. It was probably funny though. I tend to catch Daily Show episodes in a sort of 1 in 5 ratio.

Osama bin ladin secret identity?
connection, they both are sexist killers.

http://www.bbspot.com/Images/News_Featur...rubble.jpg

I really think this sums everything up..

Bush : "Who the hell are we gonna bomb again?" !

Powell " Irag"

Bush: "Why would be bomb one of our own states?"

Girls just wanna have fun.

It took you to make me realize.

I have a theory!
He is Blind? [x]
Stupid [x]
Careless [x]
gay [ ]
not real [ ]
had sexual relations with an intern [ ]
Evil [ x]
Liar [x]
deaf [ ]
capitalist slime [ x]
christian [x]
blastphemus [x]
Virgin [x]
hates canada [x]
dumb red neck bastard [x]
hates the french [x]
Trigger happy [x]
Failed remedial english [x]
steals cookies [x]
bad dresser [x]

that pretty much sums it up.

Those aren't very nice ways to describe the president...

They're true, though... well, most of them...

Sure he hates the French, but deep down don't we all? :D

Quote:Originally posted by Great Rumbler
Sure he hates the French, but deep down don't we all? :D

Well, it's not Bush's fault that the French are spineless cowards that contribute nothing to humanity.

They make nice toast..

it may surprise you but "french fries" were created by english canadians!
I guess "english fries" didnt sound good.
As for france and germany wheaselness , They have sold more weapons to suddam hussein then anybody else.Even after the golf war. If you ever seen dateline tv show , they had a documentory on how the Arabs in france are treated as second class citizens.Alot of the 9/11 hi jackers were french Arabs from france.
the french president cut out the eartern europeans nations from join the union becuase they supported Bush and the U.S on Irag.
So we can only come to the conclusion that they are "dirty rats".

I do agree that it wasn't right for the French president to try to pressure Eastern European nations into suppporting them by threatening to withdraw support for them to eventually join the EU... but overall I like their position. I completely agree that we should do everything possible to avoid war before bringing it up as a possibilty...

Quote:Originally posted by alien space marine
it may surprise you but "french fries" were created by english canadians!
I guess "english fries" didnt sound good.
As for france and germany wheaselness , They have sold more weapons to suddam hussein then anybody else.Even after the golf war. If you ever seen dateline tv show , they had a documentory on how the Arabs in france are treated as second class citizens.Alot of the 9/11 hi jackers were french Arabs from france.
the french president cut out the eartern europeans nations from join the union becuase they supported Bush and the U.S on Irag.
So we can only come to the conclusion that they are "dirty rats".

In France, they call French kissing "English kissing".

It's true, it's true. Or so FHM magazine told me.

And for everyones enjoyment.. I have prepared this collage.. of the man.. that is... George W. Bush Jr.

<EMBED SRC="http://www.nsk.gr.jp/oka/html/midicolle/Streisand_Barbra-The_Way_We_Were.mid" AUTOSTART="TRUE" LOOP="TRUE" WIDTH="145" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="CENTER">
<NOEMBED>
<BGSOUND SRC="http://www.nsk.gr.jp/oka/html/midicolle/Streisand_Barbra-The_Way_We_Were.mid" LOOP="10">
</NOEMBED>
</EMBED>

<marquee></marquee>

LOL! sweet!
all we need now is a picture of George .w. bush getting spanked by his daddy for being a bad boy and not killing suddam hussein.

what music is that?

Meeeeemories!

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I do agree that it wasn't right for the French president to try to pressure Eastern European nations into suppporting them by threatening to withdraw support for them to eventually join the EU... but overall I like their position. I completely agree that we should do everything possible to avoid war before bringing it up as a possibilty...

No. We should hurry up and get it over with. This war will be such an easy win it makes me wonder what all the fuss is about. I'd be surprised if we lost 50 casualties.

On a slightly more serious note, two good friends of mine are in Kuwait right now, along with my cousin. I wish them the best of luck, even though only one is in a combat role (Marines). None of them were pussying about the war, it's their duty and they accept it. I admire them for that, and honestly it makes me sick knowing that they're putting their lives on the line for a bunch of cowards and whiners who don't appreciate it. Of course, they're also putting their lives on the line for a much larger portion of America that does appreciate them.

If that pro-American protest march spreads to Richmond, I'll definitely participate. It's about time the idea of political marching is used for the right purposes again.

I think both sides bring up a good argument.
if we attack Irag what will be the reprocations? more terrorist attacks more twisted bin ladin movies , alienate the middle east even more.

but if we do nothing an evil Dictator who has used WMD before in the past gets away free , and his people will suffer for it.
There is no doubt Suddam hussein supports terrorism as he was cheering Al'Qeada for 9/11 and praising them.Is bin ladin and suddam working togther? we dont know , Bin ladin is said to distaste Suddam Hussein but if it serves his purpose he will aid him.

Untill bio weapons and baned military equipement is found it certainly isnt wise to attack now.....every dead Iragi Civilian killed in that war would have his/her blood on your hands and you would not have a truly justified reason for it other then hating suddam. truth is I hope your goverment learns its lesson in not giving weapons to strangers during the Irany war.

It's about now that they need to send in a small team to eliminate Saddam Hussein (and his lookalikes) quietly.

I'm indifferent on the war. While I believe it should be the very last option to be used, only when all other options are exhausted.. when will it be too late? Will Iraq be the next N. Korea?

Also, US going against the UN is really a stab in the back of what the US supposedly stand for. Democracy.

I also question GWB's motives for wanting to go into Iraq, but that's a whole other discussion.

Quote:I'd be surprised if we lost 50 casualties.

50 is still too many, if the war can be avoided. Which is why it really should be a last resort measure.

And what if Saddam is anticipating the US invading Iraq? He has shown in the past that he's not afraid to use weapons on his opwn people, I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam will have a trap ready, to use a WoMD on the US troops, and his own people.

Quote:Originally posted by Private Hudson
Also, US going [b]against the UN is really a stab in the back of what the US supposedly stand for. Democracy.
[/B]

If the UN refuses to enforce it's own regulations, then the organization has no worth. Why bother with rules if you lack the backbone to make sure they are abided by? The US is trying to cooperate with the UN, else we'd probably be finished with the war already. But the UN is steadily proving itself worthless. One of the reasons the United States of America is the most powerful nation in the world is because we don't turn yellow in the face of our enemies, we bury them. And I think more and more that the UN will be buried with Iraq. And I think more and more that that would be a good thing.

Quote:Originally posted by Weltall
If the UN refuses to enforce it's own regulations, then the organization has no worth. Why bother with rules if you lack the backbone to make sure they are abided by? The US is trying to cooperate with the UN, else we'd probably be finished with the war already. But the UN is steadily proving itself worthless. One of the reasons the United States of America is the most powerful nation in the world is because we don't turn yellow in the face of our enemies, we bury them. And I think more and more that the UN will be buried with Iraq. And I think more and more that that would be a good thing.

It would be a bad thing! Even the united states must abide by the law.You cant go in and invade and conquere anybody you choose freely, it would be the end of order and the begining of probaily many different world wars.

If you been robbed you call the police and have the theif arrested, you dont go out on your own and take justice into your own hands.Whout some kind of international agreement it would be choas just like it was in 1914 and 1939.
The UN got inspectors in Irag and so far they have found nothing , Sure Suddam probaily has hidden it but attacking Irag will rash without a just reason. It is Bush seniors fault for this current hardship if he had only gone the hole way and eliminated suddam long ago non of this would be happening.

The U.S has killed more people with weapons of Mass destruction then anybody else (hiroshima and nagasaski) the U.S could show some responsibility by not only destroying its arsenal but banning all Nukes in the world.

Quote:Originally posted by alien space marine
the U.S could show some responsibility by not only destroying its arsenal but banning all Nukes in the world.

Destroying our arsenal wouldn't do anything usefull and banning nukes wouldn't do any good either.

Say we destroy all our nukes and a country like North Korea start up a nuclear program. We tell them to stop making nukes. They basically say "Make us". We can't do anything becuase if we tried they would use their nukes against us.

It's basically the threat of mutual annihilation. Play Metal Gear Solid to see the whole idea, AND exactly how it can blow up in our face... Um, no pun intended... Anyway, while I do believe we should disarm (and by the way, we have been slowly disarming at the same rate Russia has, at least to the best of our knowledge :D), at the moment it's not safe. Now I also don't think trusting no one is the best policy at all times, and in fact this sort of defensive thing could potentially CAUSE nuclear war, but at the moment it's the best strategy. AFTER North Korea is dealt with, then I do believe disarming should be done.

Oh, Mr. Space Marine, the US government IS the police. There is no "higher government" countries turn to to deal with this stuff. Saying the UN is the police and countries need to go to them is laughable. Unless the UN actually DOES rule all the countries it represents, which it doesn't, it has no real power. If there really was a world government, you would have a point, but there is none and I'm afraid the UN's ability to make ruling decitions is a failed idea. With no power to back up their decisions, what good are they? There is one purpose for them, talks. This is an important purpose to be sure, but they don't have the power to go beyond talking when they control nothing. That's how inspectors could just be turned away at no consequence, because the UN can't do a thing to enforce it.

Now then, on to things I've heard which may just be filthy rumors, but I just wanna give my opinion anyway. Correct me if I heard somethign totally a lie Weltall! Anyway, it seems there's a bill W is trying to pass to allow arresting anyone considered to be a terrorist, with that definition left to the government, and secret arrests and such with no explanation. Now then, this is America, so if such claims are true, I have a HUGE problem with that here.

Quote:Originally posted by alien space marine
It would be a bad thing! Even the united states must abide by the law.You cant go in and invade and conquere anybody you choose freely, it would be the end of order and the begining of probaily many different world wars.

On the contrary, we're taking out Iraq to prevent the chaos that would unquestionably happen should Saddam get a usable weapon. The greatest evil a man can do is to do nothing.

Quote:If you been robbed you call the police and have the theif arrested, you dont go out on your own and take justice into your own hands.

I agree. But what if the police refused to do anything about it? Are you supposed to just accept it and be at their mercy? The UN is doing nothing about the problem it faces, they hope it will just go away. That won't happen.

Quote:Whout some kind of international agreement it would be choas just like it was in 1914 and 1939.

Hardly. In 1914 there were a lot of nationalists and imperialists looking to dominate their neighbors. While the ensuing war was worse than any before it, wars had been started for the same reason a hundred times before. And in 1939, everything collapsed because the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, was doing exactly to Germany what the UN is doing for Iraq: Appeasement. THAT was a huge factor in Hitler's expansion, the failure of the League of Nations to do its job, and history repeats itself.

Quote:The UN got inspectors in Irag and so far they have found nothing , Sure Suddam probaily has hidden it but attacking Irag will rash without a just reason. It is Bush seniors fault for this current hardship if he had only gone the hole way and eliminated suddam long ago non of this would be happening.

Of course the inspectors find nothing, it's all being hidden. Of course, none of the KNOWN weapons have been accounted for either. But here's the thing: It's not up to us to prove they have the weapons: it's up to THEM to prove they don't. They were the ones defeated in the war, they were the ones that had the UN resolution passed against them, therefore the burden of proof is on Iraq to prove to the world that they are behaving. And they are doing just the opposite. Their actions make obvious the fact that they have weapons of destruction. If they had nothing to hide, they'd be free with the proof of that. That they resist is reason enough for war.

Quote:The U.S has killed more people with weapons of Mass destruction then anybody else (hiroshima and nagasaski) the U.S could show some responsibility by not only destroying its arsenal but banning all Nukes in the world.

Well, aside from the fact that your scenario is idealistic and unrealistic, the point must be made that we gave Japan ample warning that we were going to create two hot new craters on their cities. They refused to listen, and they paid the price. It also must be noted that we've never used any since then. And we never would without the most extreme provocation. We don't go around bashing the skulls of our neigbors for no reason. The United States is as stable a nation as you'll ever find. We would NEVER use them except as the ultimate last restult.

Ugh... more stupid political views as said by Weltall...

Quote:On the contrary, we're taking out Iraq to prevent the chaos that would unquestionably happen should Saddam get a usable weapon. The greatest evil a man can do is to do nothing.

Maybe... but diplomacy and inspections are hardly nothing...

Quote:I agree. But what if the police refused to do anything about it? Are you supposed to just accept it and be at their mercy? The UN is doing nothing about the problem it faces, they hope it will just go away. That won't happen.

The UN is doing something... its just not what Mr. Warmonger W. doesn't like that policy and wants to go in with the army like his daddy did...

Quote:Hardly. In 1914 there were a lot of nationalists and imperialists looking to dominate their neighbors. While the ensuing war was worse than any before it, wars had been started for the same reason a hundred times before. And in 1939, everything collapsed because the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, was doing exactly to Germany what the UN is doing for Iraq: Appeasement. THAT was a huge factor in Hitler's expansion, the failure of the League of Nations to do its job, and history repeats itself.

On this one I hardly know where to begin... First, yes, World War 1 was a very different situation, and the last of the wars between the imperial powers that had happened every so often for a really long time. True. But WW2? You honestly believe a word of that? Insane...

First, the League of Nations. It was a powerless body... and why? Because we refused to join because isolationists had control of the US government. And without the US, it was doomed to be a failure and prove not very powerful...

Appeasement of Hitler. Did it work? Nope. But did it hurt? Not really... Hitler was going to have war one way or the other (because he wanted vengeance for Germany's loss in WW1, and the brutal peace treaty imposed on Germany by the victorious European Allies), so appeasement was doomed to failure. But was it worth the effort? Yes... Europe desperately didn't want another major war so soon after WW1, and no sane person should even begin to blame them... but at the time the appeasements were a legitimite thing to try and probably did slow down the start of the war a little. I think it was the right thing to do, even though it was obviously, in hindsight, doomed to failure from before it started... the League of Nations was powerless from the minuite it was created without the US in it and had no chance to be a body like the UN with some vague kind of legitimate power... it couldn't do anything substantial, and what it did do was the right thing considering the situation and what they knew at the time. How you think it had any affect on the war, other than not making Germany invade Austria and Czechoslovakia in addition to the rest of Europe, is beyond me.

Quote:Of course the inspectors find nothing, it's all being hidden. Of course, none of the KNOWN weapons have been accounted for either. But here's the thing: It's not up to us to prove they have the weapons: it's up to THEM to prove they don't. They were the ones defeated in the war, they were the ones that had the UN resolution passed against them, therefore the burden of proof is on Iraq to prove to the world that they are behaving. And they are doing just the opposite. Their actions make obvious the fact that they have weapons of destruction. If they had nothing to hide, they'd be free with the proof of that. That they resist is reason enough for war.

The inspections are working as well as they can be expected to... they have found some things. Have they found it all? Of course not.. .Saddaam is definitely hiding some things. But its not like they haven't found anything... they have, such as those empty shells (that, it seems, they knew about before when they left and found them as they expected to)... and without inspections I doubt that we'd have any way to really see if Iraq does actually get rid of those missiles we know they have that break the maximum allowed range for Iraqi missiles that was imposed on them years ago.

What do we need to start finding more things that Sadaam is hiding? First, much tougher inspections and a lot more inspectors... that is the logical next step. Keeping some kind of military force in the region, to be able to threaten Sadaam if he slips any more than he already is into not cooperating, is probably smart too... but threatening on the level Bush is is completely irresponsible and doesn't take notice of what the situation is. Tougher inspections can work, if given time, a chance to work, and constant diplomatic pressure on Sadaam to comply... with the use of force only as a absolute last resort that we are nowhere near thinking about yet.

Quote:Well, aside from the fact that your scenario is idealistic and unrealistic, the point must be made that we gave Japan ample warning that we were going to create two hot new craters on their cities. They refused to listen, and they paid the price. It also must be noted that we've never used any since then. And we never would without the most extreme provocation. We don't go around bashing the skulls of our neigbors for no reason. The United States is as stable a nation as you'll ever find. We would NEVER use them except as the ultimate last restult.

Well... getting rid of all nukes is obviously a fantasy that will never happen in the real world. We do need them for deterrance...

Did we warn Japan? Yes... but NO ONE, least of all the Japanese, had any conception of the full scale of what was meant... so you can't honestly and truthfully say they were really warned...

Oh, and if we're so stable and sane, how come we've got this guy as president?

Quote:Oh, Mr. Space Marine, the US government IS the police. There is no "higher government" countries turn to to deal with this stuff. Saying the UN is the police and countries need to go to them is laughable. Unless the UN actually DOES rule all the countries it represents, which it doesn't, it has no real power. If there really was a world government, you would have a point, but there is none and I'm afraid the UN's ability to make ruling decitions is a failed idea. With no power to back up their decisions, what good are they? There is one purpose for them, talks. This is an important purpose to be sure, but they don't have the power to go beyond talking when they control nothing. That's how inspectors could just be turned away at no consequence, because the UN can't do a thing to enforce it.

Yes, the UN has no power to get any government to do anything, no army... not much at all. However, it is a powerful diplomatic force and if the US acts on its own, while it won't be technically illegal, it will be extremely irresponsible to the international community in this day and age when we want to think that we can work together more... (oh, sorry, forgot that that idea was completely alien to Bush...) Bush of course has always disdained the international community and doesn't care in the least about them so I'm hardly surprised that he'd do something as rash as starting a war. But it IS irresponsible... the international community, in the form of the UN, is the power that works like the police do... and us going in alone (Or with the British, Austrailians, and Spanish) is equivilant to the man going and getting personal revenge instead of going through law enforcement. I don't see how you don't see that...

Quote:Now then, on to things I've heard which may just be filthy rumors, but I just wanna give my opinion anyway. Correct me if I heard somethign totally a lie Weltall! Anyway, it seems there's a bill W is trying to pass to allow arresting anyone considered to be a terrorist, with that definition left to the government, and secret arrests and such with no explanation. Now then, this is America, so if such claims are true, I have a HUGE problem with that here.

As far as I know, the government (Bush and Ashcroft...) do want something along those lines passed.

Hey, we've already given up some of our constitutional rights... why not more? Who cares about 'freedoms' anyway? Blind patriotism and the pursuit of phantom terrorists are far more important!