How freakin stupid....
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=115287
Printed Date: 14 January 2026 at 5:23pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: How freakin stupid....
Posted By: .Ryan
Subject: How freakin stupid....
Date Posted: 06 October 2004 at 7:24pm
|
Ok, I supported going into Iraq to take Saddam out and all but there
are other things that need to be watched and dealt with. Like the
Nuclear capable, war-like, rebellious, oriental country that has
missles that can reach our coast and really mess up our allies in the
area....North Korea is totally not getting the attention needed. And to
top that off we are now pulling troops out of the area.... http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2004/10/07/200410070028.asp - grrr... -------------  |
Replies:
Posted By: Enos Shenk
Date Posted: 06 October 2004 at 7:27pm
|
You act like bush is interested in safety of the country. Iraq was just a bait and switch to turn everyones attention back to what a "badass terrorism killer" he is, when it looked like we werent going to catch bin laden in time to satisfy the american publics idiotic attention span. N Korea would actually put up a fight, i havent decided if bush is too big of a sissy to tackle them, or if hes crazy enough to do something stupid and get us all nuked. I dunno about you, but id rather not get nuked. ------------- 
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 06 October 2004 at 7:30pm
| damnit enos, let me get one of em! |
Posted By: nickman98
Date Posted: 06 October 2004 at 7:34pm
|
no nukes for blood ...orwas it oil....or food...gah i cant remember bushes policies |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 06 October 2004 at 7:37pm
|
Yeah, I used to be a big Bush supporter but I'm leaning away from him
now. I'm pretty undesided but he has definately lost a lot of my
support.
------------- |
Posted By: Helmut12289
Date Posted: 06 October 2004 at 8:00pm
|
yeah... except no. Obviously you have been sniffing gasoline. Bush doesnt want to be a badass terrorist killer, he does whats right for the United States and the people of Iraq, who, if you were unaware, were being tortured and raped under Saddams reign. Yeah, I said it, taking out Iraq was good for the American people because the Taliban had links and support from Iraq, not to mention Saddam had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction. Compare this to WWII, Japan bombed us, and we didnt just go after them, we declared war on Germany too. God you guys make me sick sometimes. Oh and make up your mind... do you want Bush to go after N. Korea, or leave em be? Its not like theres only two choices: Go all out and have a nuclear war, or do nothing. GEEZ! ------------- Axe in the head, early to bed, Axe in the helmet, a thanks to Helmut... and I support Bush! So there. |
Enos Shenk wrote:Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 06 October 2004 at 8:19pm
Ok doofy, I think you're the one huffing the gas....Iraq had no links to the taliban and no real links to al-quadea(how ever you spell it). It did support terrorists so it can be linked to the war on terror for that reason, if not simply for the fact that Iraq has become the battle ground for the WOT, but they had no links to those particular groups. They also have been proven not to have the capabilities for WMDs(no running programs). Don't get me wrong, I supported getting Saddam out of power because he was a brutal dictator and has been thumbing his nose at the international community for the past 10 years but please get your facts strait. As far as NK I thought I made my self clear, and Enos did too, that we thought something should be done about NK....God you guys make me sick sometimes.... Edit: And your WWII analogy makes no sense....Iraq wasn't trying to take over the world... ------------- |
Posted By: tippy_182
Date Posted: 06 October 2004 at 8:42pm
I agree with Enos in a way. Even me being pro-bush and all. If you going to go into Iraq because the pose a threat, the you should do the same from other threatening countries as well. But it would go the same for any other Pres. we might have. "Hes to reluctant, hes scared, take them before they take us". Either way we were screwed. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Betterdays
Date Posted: 06 October 2004 at 9:05pm
Me too. Cthulhu in 04 has my vote...Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 07 October 2004 at 12:23am
|
I support getting Sadam out of power, I don't support the yo-yo reasons they have given for it.
Admit it. They went in for oil. http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTB1M2EzYWFoBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdG VzdAMwBHRtcGwDaWUtYmV0YQ--/s/135781/*http://story.news.yahoo .com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041007/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_w eapons&cid=540&ncid=716 - This No WMD. No WMD programs. No ability to produce WMD's. A soft target that should have been easy. 1000 KIA later, the country is apparently 2 years away from civil war if the US withdraw. They started it, they better sort it out before they leave. KBK |
Posted By: Barretm82
Date Posted: 07 October 2004 at 7:14am
Is that the same way you support stopping the genocide in Africa, but the U.N. can't do anything about it? So its just all sissy talk? ---I believe the U.S. should stay out of Africa, however you guys South Africa should be stepping up to the plate to stop the current genocides. Obviously you are not, why not? This is going to sound harsh, but are you a nation, or cheerleaders? |
Posted By: Barretm82
Date Posted: 07 October 2004 at 7:25am
|
If my American bros ever start "relying" on the U.N. for defense and security, then God help them.
For an example of this, just look at how successful the U.N. is in Africa? The bottom line is that Saddam as demonstrated by his actions was a threat to the West. Even the crazy lunatic Kim IL has not actually used WMD on people as Saddam has. Some would argue that Kim is crazier then Saddam, that may be true, but we have never seen him cross the Saddam threshold and "USE" WMDs... As for your oil arguments, the oil "Factor" is that it provided incredible world influence and funding for Saddam and his terrorist ambitions against democracies. |
Posted By: PopeMobile
Date Posted: 07 October 2004 at 7:45am
|
Get over it. North Korea isnt going to do a GD thing because we would wipe them and that Kim J...whatever of the face of the earth. They are on our crap list already and they know it. ------------- To the pope mobile!! 
|
Posted By: Ricin.rpf
Date Posted: 07 October 2004 at 8:16am
|
Not just North Korea, but what about the Genocide going on in Africa? Its as if no one cares. The nightly news never even metions it. It seems as though only the news on pbs does... ------------- http://profile.xfire.com/rayne0167"> 
|
Posted By: Joshy
Date Posted: 07 October 2004 at 9:50am
|
I want to move to Australia. Nothing ever happens there... ------------- I guarantee that I am better than you at Halo 2. |
Posted By: Barretm82
Date Posted: 07 October 2004 at 11:35am
That’s how the U.N. handles these things; there was a resolution that was vetoed to deal with Africa. So nothing happens. This why when I hear American comments about passing the Global test, IE. U.N. approval. That kind of talk in a simple word, bugs me... |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 October 2004 at 12:45pm
|
No WMD's, but that still makes me wonder why Saddam procrastinated for so long. Could it be that he was able to keep more control over his people while under UN sanctions? He was obviously doing well with the "Oil for Food" program. The links from Iraq to Al Qaeda aren't strong ones, but they did exist, the 911 commission admitted as much. Regardless, Saddam was a supporter of terrorism, giving $25,000 to the families of each suicide bomber to blow him or herself up in Israel. North Korea is less our problem than it is greater Asia's. China is an erstwhile ally to us, with strong influence over N Korea. For better or worse, China's economy is tied to ours, and they will not allow N Korea to become too great a threat. Iran is a different matter. It is obvious that they are seeking to develop nuclear weapons, mainly due to the fact that any success we have in Iraq will have an adverse reaction on their own country. It is well documented that alot of the small arms being used by insurgents in Iraq are coming from Iran. Iran will continue to be a problem, they know that they are next on the list in the "Axis of Evil", and should the problems in Iraq be brought under control, we will have to start focusing our attention on them. As for myself, I leave for Iraq in 3 weeks, my third trip there. I've seen steady improvement in the country's infrastructure since my first visit. I wish the media would report the good news with as much zeal as they report the bad. I sent out for my absentee ballot today, go W! ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 07 October 2004 at 1:37pm
|
The...truth...about...the...Iraq...war...is...starting... to...leak...out...must...stop...flow...of...truth...until... after...the...election...*gasp* *wheeze* - G.W. |
Posted By: Dead Man Walkin
Date Posted: 07 October 2004 at 1:51pm
|
This is sad folks. |
Posted By: Unicorn
Date Posted: 09 October 2004 at 10:50am
|
Yes it's about oil. It's about the region producing almost all the oil used by the world. It's about the fact that if that region went up in flames, then the US (and the rest of the world) would be well and truly screwed because we'd have to find some source of energy. Russia would definately come out ahead in this though, since they have an unknown amount of oil in Siberia that they can't really afford to drill for. Venezeula would do nicely, since they are the only non-Middle East country that is a member of OPEC (IIRC). France doesn't really have to worry since they were so xenophobic in the 70's that they produce around 70% of their electricity by nuclear power plants. Without oil in this region, we wouldn't really care what happens. The same basic thing as Africa. A little more since we'd still have an interest in keeping Israel from being destroyed from being invaded by every neighboring country, but maybe not since those countries wouldn't have the money to buy any tanks or airplanes.
We're pulling out troops from Korea, because there's no real reason to keep them there. For a long while after the war, the S. Korean Army was pretty small and poorly trained and equipped. Now, they have modern equipment, and are decently trained. We haven't really had enough troops in Korea to be more than a speed bump anyway, even when we have the full 2nd ID there. Te be an actual deterrent from some real agreesion (assuming no other military forces but us) it would take something like 5 divisions. Maybe one armored, one mech, and 3 of light, airborne, or air-assault. This is just my guess of course. |
Posted By: Trogdor2
Date Posted: 09 October 2004 at 11:40am
|
I'm just gonna stay out of this one...
------------- Something unknown is doing we don't know what. That is what our knowledge amounts to. - Sir Arthur Eddington |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 09 October 2004 at 12:05pm
| I think Enos hit the nail on the head with this one. It's just a dog and pony show, going after a country and someone who poses no actual threat compared to another country, or countries, that might do more harm. |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 12:11am
|
^hopefully you don't believe the crap in your sig...^ Anyway, while Bush certainly did not "knock down the towers" he certainly has lost my support. This just kinda pushed it over the edge. With forigne policy he is taking care of the smallest, easiest threats first just to show that he is a man of action and president that that will defend us when he really isn't doing all that great of being either. He isn't acting on the genocide in Africa and he isn't taking care of our biggest threat, North Korea. On the economy, I know people who's jobs were shipped over seas and I have not seen our economy raise enough to keep us where we need to be since 9/11. Bush is in charge so Bush gets the blame. On other domestic matters, he is worrying about **edited** marriage in a time where our country is at war in two areas, which are part of a global war on terror, it's economy is crap, and job loss is up to unimaginable degrees. He is holding down stem cell research that could cure millions of sick and dying people because it conflicts with his religion and he is pushing for even the few ligitimate reasons for abortion to be illegal. When I really look at the past four years I see that, while push handled 9/11 pretty well, he has steadily declined in his preformance after that. And thats my political rant for today. Don't kill me Sandman, Enos did it too....  ------------- |
Posted By: pb_sk8_kid
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 12:20am
|
dude ryan what he means is that Bush supported the bin laden families
before and even after 9/11 and they knocked down the towers |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 12:27am
|
Bush let bin laden's family out of the country...they didn't do
it...who cares? And it is really really wrong to say that he was
responsible to the 9/11 attacks. But yeah, I don't like the fact that
Bush is so in bed with the Saudis either...I just forgot to mention
it....
------------- |
Posted By: PopeMobile
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 12:38am
|
We need a good genocide, we need another world war to stop this population problem, we can nuke some scum while we are at it too (preferably france) the U.S. needs to fall, ~350 years is long enough, George Bush cheated to become president, now the republicans are trying to make us hate the world so that when they take it over we dont get pissed. ------------- To the pope mobile!!
|
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 12:40am
|
^lol^ I hope we go to Canada first when they start executing their evil plan....
------------- |
Posted By: Fallout_soldier
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 1:47am
|
Bush is in iraq for money. ------------- 
Canada http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=atomicbomb.wmv |
Posted By: fractus.scud
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 10:42am
|
You people disgust me. If we were in Iraq for oil gas wouldnt cost a buck 95 per gallon of mid-grade. I know people in Iraq, talked to them, and they said that the media is blowing everything out of proportion. .Ryan kid Bush has created 1.9 MILLION jobs, it's getting better, as for the economy, it's not that bad, your not selling apples on the corner of the street for a living are you? With an Uncle as a docter I know that you DONT need to use the Embryo for stem cells. Bush is in Iaq for money, thats the stupidist statement I ever heard. ------------- 
Benny go home! |
Posted By: 98God
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 12:03pm
| Bush only goes after countries he knows he can win against.... |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 12:23pm
|
I certainly believe everything in my sig. Yes, yes you have to use embryo stem cells for certain cures. It doesn't matter what your uncle says, the research supports the fact that it is quite possible for stem cell research to cure many diseases, but you must use them. Other types of stem cells are also used, but the uniqueness of embryo stem cells allots for research that cannot be done any other way. |
Posted By: :ShockeR_ratm:
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 12:32pm
Me as well but it is kind of hard to accept that people actually feel the way they do of our president and the war we're in...It seriously blows my mind...That's all I have to say I'm not going into any debate or flame fest...Rip me apart all you want ------------- 
Nobody ever suspects the fun police! 
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 1:35pm
| I hate to agree with fractus, but the whole theory of invading Iraq for some financial goal, oil or otherwise, really makes no sense... It's just meaningless propaganda. |
Posted By: ItalianoGuy04
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 3:30pm
|
IMO bush handles every situiation perfectly and is the best.. ------------- 
Supe'd up Spyda Victor, don't like it, don't care |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 3:32pm
lol |
Posted By: Barretm82
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 4:27pm
--cough "Your wrong" cough-- Do a search on Umbilical cord stem cells, this day and age it is really silly to use embryo stem cells. (As I understand it, I am not an stem cell researcher.) Use Of Stem Cells From Umbilical Cords Taking Off in Japan. By Patrick Goodenough CNSNews.com Pacific Rim Bureau Chief November 07, 2001 Pacific Rim Bureau (CNSNews.com) - Even as a Japanese university moves toward research of stem cells requiring the destruction of human embryos, elsewhere in the country hundreds of patients are being successfully treated with stem cells from a free, widely-available and ethically acceptable source - umbilical cords. Japanese doctors have just carried out their 500th transplant of cord blood, the tiny amount of blood present in the umbilical cord of a newborn baby. Stem cells from cord blood are treating illnesses like leukemia and aplastic anemia, the head of the country's national Cord Blood Bank Network said Wednesday. "Embryonic stem cells carry ethical problem but not cord blood cells. They are entirely different," Dr. Hidehiko Saito said by phone from Japan. He agreed that using stem cells from umbilical cords sidestepped the concerns raised by pro-lifers about the use of embryos. It was reported this week that researchers at Kyoto University hope soon to start harvesting stem cells from embryos "left over" after in-vitro fertilization treatment. Pro-lifers oppose research using human embryonic stem cells, which results in the destruction of early-stage embryos. Scientists believe stem cells have the potential to help treat degenerative diseases. Saito, who also heads the Department of Internal Medicine at Nagoya University, said cord blood banks have been collecting blood from umbilical cords of Japanese babies immediately after childbirth for several years. The stem cells are extracted and frozen in liquid nitrogen. Blood taken from an umbilical cord following a birth is rich in blood stem cells, the core ingredient of all kinds of blood cells, similar to those found in bone marrow. By receiving a transplant of these cells, patients with blood disorders can revive their body's ability to create healthy blood cells. "We have just completed the 500th transplant across Japan," Saito said. "Eighty percent of the recipients are children, most of them suffering from acute leukemia." These transplants best serve small children, as only a small amount of cord blood can be extracted from one umbilical cord and placenta. Initially relatives of the donor were the recipients of cord blood transplants, but this has now changed. As a network of non-profit banks collects and stores more units, suitable matches are becoming more easily available. The information is available on the Internet, and patients and doctors can look up what's available and find a suitable HLA (human lymphocyte antigen) phenotype match. Saito said cord blood transplants are also being seen as a good alternative to bone marrow transplants. Using stem cells from cord blood doesn't require as exact a match between donor and recipient as in the case of bone-marrow transplants, he said. It's also easier to donate - the process of removing blood from the part of the cord connected to the placenta is quick, painless, and completely harmless to mother or child. The mother gives an "informed consent," so there are no ethical worries. In Japan, there is a tradition of keeping a child's umbilical cord - Saito recalled seeing his own many years ago - although it is less common than in the past. But as the blood is quickly and immediately removed, the umbilical cord can be given to the mother if desired. As the number of cord blood samples collected and stored increases, a readily accessible supply will be available as needed, Saito said. "We plan to collect 20,000 units in four years. Japanese people are quite homogenous genetically, so we think 20,000 will be enough to meet the needs of 80 percent [of children needing transplants.]" It would be an easy target to reach, he said, noting that more than 6,000 had already been collected, and one million children are born in Japan each year. There was no problem in raising public awareness about the need to donate - the message was getting through, he said. The main difficulty was the money required, as it is expensive to collect and store cord blood. The Japanese government does fund the project, but more money is needed. Cord blood banks are now initiating private fundraising projects. The relative potential offered by embryonic stem cells and "adult" stem cells obtained from sources such as cord blood continue to be debated, but Dr. David Prentice, professor of life sciences at Indiana State University, said earlier this year "adult" cells are "an excellent, viable, and ethical alternative to embryonic stem cells." Researchers have reported a number of potential benefits of umbilical cord stem cells in recent years. In 1999, Japanese researchers experimenting with rats reported that stem cells from umbilical cords may one day help human heart patients grow their own heart bypasses. Earlier this year, scientists told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that umbilical cord stem cells could in the future be used to repair brain damage suffered by stroke victims. The U.S. publication Science named research demonstrating the potential of "adult" stem cells as the fifth most important scientific advance of 2000. Here is another link, there are hundreds just like it in the research community. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/san_francisco/1177766.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/san_franci sco/1177766.stm |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 4:34pm
|
<moved to other thread> |
Posted By: Barretm82
Date Posted: 10 October 2004 at 4:46pm
|
Stem cell research thread created... Comments posted there.
|