USA vs Iraq...solutions?

[clutch-monkey]

i think fleet just wants to argue without having anybody argue back. that way he's always right

[Matra et Alpine]

They're talking about drilling in only less than 2,000 acres out of a total of 19 million acres. With today's technology, we can take out the oil without harming the environment.

huh ?
Fidn the evidence to back that one up because it is way wrong.
We have NO automatic way to clean up oil spills that get into ground !
The BEST we are managing is partial containment in calm open seas !!!
The ONLY way to clean a bird is to catch it, wash it in detergants and pump it's stomahc out - VERY labour intensive.
Sorry, Fleet, give your propensity to bash "liberals" then you need to offer up the FACTS that support your supposition.

Liberals think *everything* we do "hurts the environment." The caribou in Alaska (who are thriving) would disagree.

"Liberals" do NOT all think that. I'm pleased to see you have travelled the world and personally met ~500million people
Please don't sput political right-wing American BS here, it just means you WILL be challenged - NOT persoanlly, but your comments and so-called facts.
And you have missed the point about the danger, IF everything goes well then it's not a major impact. ONE major fire or rupture or spill and THEN it woudl be catastrpohic. THAT is why it must be limited - it's the "impact" that is the concerns.
That the Caribou are benefitting from the protection of a pipeline is a plus - UNTIL they may all be wiped out one day by a leak which covers their tundra in oil which kills them when ingested

BTW, if drilling in Alaska shouldn't be done so we can "protect the environment," why don't people like you mention drilling done in the other parts of the world? Like Canada, Mexico, Venezuela?

and WHY do you think we don't ?
PLEASE remove the chip about America from the shoulder.
We have oil and gas aroudn the shores of Scotland. There are some places where it is KNOWN to be and is NOT being exploited for those reasons !
Check out facts before as all those "lefty liberals" and "eco-warriors" you dont' seem to like.trust are battling for the planet everywhere.

[QuattroMan]

Ok, US originally went to Iraq because in the 90s, they had no enemy and therefore didn't get any new taxes from the taxpayers. What I'm trying to say is that the politicians weren't getting the amount of money they wanted. So, they had to look for a new enemy and turned to Middle East, now that there was a war, politicians had a reason to suck the money from the taxpayers and of course they were supported. And of course, who could forget the oil, they want free oil or get it as cheaply as possible.
The solution? The dumbass Bush should get his ass off and away from Iraq. If he wouldn't have went there in the first place the whole 911 thing could have easily been avoided.
The thing is that it's already too late. Iraq had a democracy there but Bush f***ed it up and wanted to place in their own leader that the Iraqi people hate so they rebelled against the US.
I wish I could go in more detail but it's late here...11:30 pm, maybe someone else could go more indepth.

I CANT believe your that stupid !!

[Coventrysucks]

Posted by Wouter Melissen: 3-07-05
"Personal attacks on any of the members or moderators from now on are immediately punished with a ban."

Posted by 6'bore: 3-07-05
"So you're saying that people who make new threads or posts specifically to flame another member will be banned? If so, it's a good idea."

Posted by Wouter Melissen: 3-07-05
"Yes sir."

Yes, it is a good idea... when does it start?

Nice try, but telling someone to "STFU" isn't a personal attack, and it isn't much of a flame. Not even a warm glow really.

The post is largely a valid point about how you have no right to complain about the price of oil when you pay absolutely f**k all for the stuff anyway.

The point of the post is to make an argument, not a personal attack.

If you want to start being pedantic about what is or isn't an "attack" then maybe someone might decide that implying the moderators are a bunch of slackers who only choose to enforce rules when it suits them to be an attack on the entire moderator and admin population...

The rule was intended to prevent the type of faeces throwing matches that kept following Karrmann about, no nurse easily bruised egos

And YES making up quotes IS a ban-able offense.

Fact of life: There are people out there who don't like you or your opinions.
Don't get hung up over it.

In Southern England the price of petrol THREE times the ammount you pay.

If however you still think you are getting a raw deal, you might consider that your government could very easily produce bio-diesel at very competative rates without needing to venture anywhere near Alaska if it wanted...

[taz_rocks_miami]

Ok, I'm not seeing any possible "solutions" posted here, which was the entire point of this thread to begin with

I agree that the insurgents have to be controled before a total pull out is possible. Like Matra said, finding them is the first problem. So, reliable inteligence is primordial.

Also, the insugents supply lines have to be cut off. They can't fight if they run out of amo and explosives.

Instaid of killing them all off, find a way to reintegrate them into Iraqi society, if they are Iraqi nationals, those who are foriegn fighters...hmmm...I don't think that just deporting them would solve anything and jailing them Guantanamo style...bad idea.

[Wolf03]

It's funny how all the Americans here are against everyone else in the world. Almost every American (considering that your location is true) disregards and says I'm stupid, yet people from other parts of the world aren't saying anything bad about me...yet. Ah...brainwashed Americans...nobody can do anything about it.

taz_rocks_miami, dude...the easiest solution is for the troops to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible and Bush should stop wasting so much money on the army.

------------
Oh by the way, getting money from the taxpayers for the politicians is a reason for "going to war". We must also not forget that Americans like being "on top of the world" and above everyone, so they wouldn't want to lose that status. Proving they "can restore peace" is a way of doing this. You know, one of these days, another great nation will rise to power, chances are Russia or China, and hopefully then "we wouldn't have to turn to the Americans for "help"."

I did make a big mistake and I'm sorry for it...not all Americans are stupid...just the half that voted for Bush.

[taz_rocks_miami]

taz_rocks_miami, dude...the easiest solution is for the troops to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible and Bush should stop wasting so much money on the army.

Just get out and let the insurgents put Saddam back in power? I think that would be a slap in face to all the men and women who have died thus far.

[whiteballz]

saddam couldnt get back in power. he is in custody!

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Orright, Enough.

It wasn't a personal attack. Fleet, Get over it. Your just crying foul now.

I agree that personal attacks are not the way foward, in fact they go a long way to kill an argument.

When i see one, it's my job, as a moderator, to point it out.

And Fleet, calling up someone's bad manners, because they do not agree with your argument, is to kill your argument.

Obviously there is some problem with Forum members being culturally ignorant. I'll be the first to admit i'm not one to talk about these issues, due to my ignorance at times, but i'll be the bigger man and admit it.

Obviously Fleet has a different opinion to many of us, but that doesn't make him wrong.

Neither, Fleet, does it make a lot of us wrong because we're different in our opinion.

I fail to see a personal attack. So, I shall quote my sister; "Build a bridge and get over it".

The whole point of an argument is to present two points of view, so let's get back to that, shall we?

[Fleet 500]

Nice try, but telling someone to "STFU" isn't a personal attack, and it isn't much of a flame.

And YES making up quotes IS a ban-able offense.

Really? What would you call it- a pleasant greeting?

They are not made-up quotes. Check out the "Personal attacks" thread. I quoted from there.

[Fleet 500]

huh ?
Fidn the evidence to back that one up because it is way wrong.
We have NO automatic way to clean up oil spills that get into ground !
The BEST we are managing is partial containment in calm open seas !!!
The ONLY way to clean a bird is to catch it, wash it in detergants and pump it's stomahc out - VERY labour intensive.
Sorry, Fleet, give your propensity to bash "liberals" then you need to offer up the FACTS that support your supposition.

"Liberals" do NOT all think that. I'm pleased to see you have travelled the world and personally met ~500million people
Please don't sput political right-wing American BS here, it just means you WILL be challenged - NOT persoanlly, but your comments and so-called facts.
And you have missed the point about the danger, IF everything goes well then it's not a major impact. ONE major fire or rupture or spill and THEN it woudl be catastrpohic. THAT is why it must be limited - it's the "impact" that is the concerns.
That the Caribou are benefitting from the protection of a pipeline is a plus - UNTIL they may all be wiped out one day by a leak which covers their tundra in oil which kills them when ingested

and WHY do you think we don't ?
PLEASE remove the chip about America from the shoulder.
We have oil and gas aroudn the shores of Scotland. There are some places where it is KNOWN to be and is NOT being exploited for those reasons !
Check out facts before as all those "lefty liberals" and "eco-warriors" you dont' seem to like.trust are battling for the planet everywhere.

Considering how much oil is drilled out of the land, oil spills are quite rare.

I everyone listened to you, we would be back in the stone age- no houses, cars, appliances, motorcycles, lawn mowers, etc. because they harm the environment!

Classic liberals think exactly like that. Interesting that you can predict that a pipeline can leak. You really think a leak would wipe out all of them? The Alaskan pipeline has been around for something like 25 years and, as I said, the caribou are thriving, even when there have been leaks.

Please don't sput your political left-wing liberal "doom-and-gloom" here because it's inaccurate.

[Fleet 500]

Orright, Enough.

It wasn't a personal attack. Fleet, Get over it. Your just crying foul now.

I agree that personal attacks are not the way foward, in fact they go a long way to kill an argument.

When i see one, it's my job, as a moderator, to point it out.

And Fleet, calling up someone's bad manners, because they do not agree with your argument, is to kill your argument.

Obviously there is some problem with Forum members being culturally ignorant. I'll be the first to admit i'm not one to talk about these issues, due to my ignorance at times, but i'll be the bigger man and admit it.

Obviously Fleet has a different opinion to many of us, but that doesn't make him wrong.

Neither, Fleet, does it make a lot of us wrong because we're different in our opinion.

I fail to see a personal attack. So, I shall quote my sister; "Build a bridge and get over it".

The whole point of an argument is to present two points of view, so let's get back to that, shall we?

Read the rules of the board (in the "Personal Attacks" thread). I bet if someone told you to STFU you'd be complaining all over this board. If that's not a personal attack, what would you call it.

You're forgetting there are others on this board that agree with my opinions.

Someone showing bad manners should be told so. If it's ignored that person would go too far and be banned eventually.

Nothing wrong with a different opinion- but to express it without name-calling and insults is the right way to do it. I learned that about 30 or 35 years ago!

[Fleet 500]

have i made a thread to personaly flame you or call you out?

if we all went around asking the mods to remove or ban someone that told them to shut up they would just give up anyway. get over it, it wasnt even an attack.

The rules say, "No threads or POSTS specifically to call or flame another members."
Perhaps you should read that thread again:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...ad.php?t=12987

[whiteballz]

ah this is grand...

read the rules again?

maybe you should..

have i said anything along the lines of.

"IB4R STFU, YOUR AN UGLY MOLE! GET OVER YOUR STUPID AVATAR!! ITS NOT ALL THAT SUPID YOU STUPID FOOL"

that is a personal attack.

have i dont anything remotely like that to you? no
would you like me to? i could stand getting a ban to prove to you it wasnt a personal attack, not that you would view it as my victory, but me beaing beaten by the mods. which by virtue i wouldnt be.

so, IB4R's sister has a saying for you, use it.

hey IB4R, how old is your sis

iraq was a mistake to invade. America should have waited longer, perhaps even gotten some serious inteligence.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Read the rules of the board (in the "Personal Attacks" thread). I bet if someone told you to STFU you'd be complaining all over this board. If that's not a personal attack, what would you call it.

To say STFU usually means your crapping on, And can not be considered a personal insult. And don't tell me how i'd react. that really annoys me.

You're forgetting there are others on this board that agree with my opinions.

I'm not, it's just your the one who seems to be complaining the loudest, so i direct my opinion to you.

Someone showing bad manners should be told so. If it's ignored that person would go too far and be banned eventually.

Methinks it's not up to Members to decide if other members behaviour needs to be modifyed. Otherwise i'm sure Karrmann would be dead by now. And, judging by the posts of my Fellow Moderators, nothing is terribly wrong.

Nothing wrong with a different opinion- but to express it without name-calling and insults is the right way to do it. I learned that about 30 or 35 years ago!

I agree wholeheartedly, you'd be surprised how many people resort to that though. Just to let you know, calling someone a "Liberal" is also name calling.