The KGB Oracle
Serving the online gaming community since 1997
Visit www.the-kgb.com
For additional information

Join KGB DISCORD: http://discord.gg/KGB
 
KGB Information
Untitled 1

Visit KGB HQ
www.the-kgb.com

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 71 guests, and 26 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Today's Birthdays
Binbs
Newest Members
Luckystrikes, Shingen, BillNyeCommieSpy, Lamp, AllenGlines
1,477 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums53
Topics13,094
Posts116,355
Members1,477
Most Online276
Aug 3rd, 2023
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
None yet
Top Posters(30 Days)
Popular Topics(Views)
2,030,539 Trump card
1,340,290 Picture Thread
478,700 Romney
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Derid Offline OP
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
OP Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Quote:

If anyone is serriously considering Hillary as a viable option for president, I suggest you do a search on a Florida attourney named Jack Thompson, Hillary is backing his 'holy war'. He is dead set in his mind that ALL video games are evil and train those who use them to become merciless killers. I'm all for a female president, I just don't want anything to do with any caddidate male or female that wants to target my video games.





Couldnt agree more with that.

Quote:


Also, while yes we should focus more on American problems, the UN should have done what we did in Iraq years ago. It's sad that the US is the only country that stood up and actualy had the balls to say 'enough is enough, this villian has to be brought to justice.'




Uhhmmm. ....... I thought it was about WMD, posing a threat
to american interests, and involvement with 9/11. Well, that was the rationales at the time. Only now do people say "bring a villian to justice". W T F?

So your saying hundreds of billions, 3500 US soldiers lives, 10's of thousands of amputations, and several HUNDRED
THOUSAND Iraqis dead since the "war" was worth it, simply cause Saddam was a bad guy? I'm sure the scores of Iraqis found dead every week may beg to differ with you, despite the fact that not many of them liked Saddam.

Quote:


We should support our troops and be proud that they are there fighting for what we beleive in. They are there, because they are in the millitary.





Who is the "we" in the "fighting for what we beleive in"? Personally I think supporting the troops often means bringing them home safe as soon as possible. Alot are overdeployed, tired and would surely like to see their families. I'm not to sure theyd appreciate random people speaking for them talking about things like pride.

Quote:


It's a life they chose to go into. I think it's horrible how civilian people want to do the same thing now they did in Vietnam and not support our troops.





I've never seen even a small inkling of this from any quarter. If this sentiment does in fact exist, please point me in its direction, as some people are in dire need of being torn down publically and made to look like idiots. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with the politicians who make the calls regarding a war, any war, and supporting or not supporting those who actually have to go fight it.

Quote:


Every time someone says we need to leave Iraq, we're insulting our millitary personal who are risking their lives to try and bring some stability to a land that's been chaotic far too long. Not to mention if we were to just up and leave now, the new Iraq government would prolly collapse with out our help and the neighboring countries would carve it up for themselves.




I wholeheartedly disagree with the first part, unfortunatly I have to reluctantly agree with the second part to an extent. Except I dont think the Iraqis qould be so lucky as to be taken under the wing of a stable government, most likely it would start to look something like afghanistan in many areas.



"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star",
May 7, 1918

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 449
Former KGB Member
**
Offline
Former KGB Member
**
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 449
Quote:

BTW Zone - Hillary eats from the exact same trough as Bush does, basically all the evil bastages of our society (Axciom, Seisint, etc) give plenty of money and favors to both. The only real difference between them, is Hillary adds more socialism to the statist mentality but is currently vocally supporting different foreign policy objectives. If anything Hillary is even scarier than GWBush.




thats definetely something to keep in mind, but i like the idea of a woman president, i think a feminine face would appeal to the international relationships we have in general maybe not hilary, but someone else.


Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 449
Former KGB Member
**
Offline
Former KGB Member
**
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 449
Quote:

If anyone is serriously considering Hillary as a viable option for president, I suggest you do a search on a Florida attourney named Jack Thompson, Hillary is backing his 'holy war'. He is dead set in his mind that ALL video games are evil and train those who use them to become merciless killers. I'm all for a female president, I just don't want anything to do with any caddidate male or female that wants to target my video games.

Also, while yes we should focus more on American problems, the UN should have done what we did in Iraq years ago. It's sad that the US is the only country that stood up and actualy had the balls to say 'enough is enough, this villian has to be brought to justice.' We should support our troops and be proud that they are there fighting for what we beleive in. They are there, because they are in the millitary. It's a life they chose to go into. I think it's horrible how civilian people want to do the same thing now they did in Vietnam and not support our troops. Every time someone says we need to leave Iraq, we're insulting our millitary personal who are risking their lives to try and bring some stability to a land that's been chaotic far too long. Not to mention if we were to just up and leave now, the new Iraq government would prolly collapse with out our help and the neighboring countries would carve it up for themselves.




its not so much that we don't support our troops, i mean the idea of going to war for your country is very honorable, extremely and rightly so deserves its own platform of respect. but when there is a clouded horizon about the reasons in which we are involved and the powers at be doing nothing to provide light instead enshrouded themselves into more mysticism, only to achieve their own ends. anyone thats watched more then 3 presidential press conferences that retain about the war will realize that they are extremely vague and seem to shine with hidden agendas in the back corners of their gaze. i admire the soldiers that go to war so that i can have a solid way of life to live in but i hate the people that send them to a war that seems to only provide a way for them to feed off the strength and courage of the valiant.

Your right if we did pull out parts of the middle east would probably cave in but I don't think that the soldiers that are there will find it very facinating if the US forces them to stay there until democracy has gotten a strong threshold in the middle east. It's not going well to say the least and I strongly doubt democracy will hold too long once the US decides to pull out for good. I think those men don't deserve to be there, it's an injustice to them and to their families. At some point your going to have to ask yourself
" Does the end justify the means or does the means justify the end?" Hum..macabre was it i can't remeber.


Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 160
Band 3
***
Offline
Band 3
***
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 160
I'm not saying thet desrve to be there, and I totaly agree that it was wrong for us to go into Iraq for the reasons we did. Yes, it is an injustice that our troops are being forced to stay there. But as part of the UN, a governmental alliance which last I knew was supposed to be ensuring things like;

"life, liberty and the security of person"
Article 3 - (UN) UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Article 5 - (UN) UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

it at the very least should have been the responsible thing for the UN as a whole to go and remove a tyrant who is willing to kill his own people with chemical weapons (launched chemical attacks against 40 Kurdish villages and thousands of innocent civilians in 1987-88). Hey, look, he did have a WMD and it's unlikely that he'd use his only chemical weapon against his own people. I don't think the way this war was started was correct at all, but if the UN wasn't going to do this, then atleast the US is humanitarian enough to be willing to liberate others from oppression.
Quote:

Iraqis found dead every week may beg to differ with you, despite the fact that not many of them liked Saddam.



You mean the same Iraqis who are dead because other Iraqis blew them up with a car bomb?

You're right, they were so much better with Saddam in power then they are now. He was only using chemical weapons that can imeadiatly cause; Death by asphyxiation, Skin burns and blisters, Impaired vision, blindness, Breathing difficulty, respiratory shutdown, Vomiting, diarrhea, digestive shutdown, Neurological disorder, Convulsions, comas OR LONGTERM EFFECTS; Permanent blindness, Disfigurement, Respiratory, digestive and neurological disorders, Leukemia, lymphoma colon breast lung skin and other cancers, Increased miscarriages and infertility Severe congenital malformations and other birth defects... and hell "5,000 civilians, many of them women, children, and the elderly, died within hours of the attack." (I think 10,000 die in total after some time goes by) is SO much better then the hell we're putting them through now where they have to walk up steps and actualy get to vote for who they want to lead their country...

Quote:

Quote:

It's a life they chose to go into. I think it's horrible how civilian people want to do the same thing now they did in Vietnam and not support our troops.




I've never seen even a small inkling of this from any quarter. If this sentiment does in fact exist, please point me in its direction, as some people are in dire need of being torn down publically and made to look like idiots. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with the politicians who make the calls regarding a war, any war, and supporting or not supporting those who actually have to go fight it.



Quote:

Who is the "we" in the "fighting for what we beleive in"? Personally I think supporting the troops often means bringing them home safe as soon as possible. Alot are overdeployed, tired and would surely like to see their families. I'm not to sure theyd appreciate random people speaking for them talking about things like pride.




You don't think that sentament exsists? Look at the news/media and ask any Vietnam vet if that looks even vaugly familiar to them. (watch yourself cause you might get an ass whooping from them for asking such a stupid question) I've spoken to a few friends and relatives who went to Vietnam, and they all are quite pissed that the civilans and media are clamoring about how we should 'pull out of a war that's not ours' just like when they were in Vietnam. These Vet's all seem to think that these things are makeing things worse for the soldiers there. Soldiers are trained to do their job and do it to completion. While they might not want to be over there, I'm sure they'd rather compleat their objectives and come home as victors, heros and saviors of the Iraqi people, then having to put their tails between their legs and give up to a much smaller group of poorly trained terrorists. And that which oddly enough my cousin, (who's on 3rd deployment in Iraq) and alot of those serving with my cousin, seem to have a very strong agreement with.

I'd had hope that it would be obvious that the 'we' would stand for the American peoples as "WE" seem to enjoy democracy where "WE" can argue about politics and wars and say things like 'our president is an asshole(evil)' with out worrying about nerve gas or black opps dragging us out of our houses in the middle of the night. Or have the right to worship any god(s) or no gods as we please compaired to the Shi'ites in Iraq when Saddam was in charge.

Bringing them home safe as soon as possible would be a great thing, especialy if the Democrats, who keep putting up bills they KNOW the president is going to VETO just to 'make a point', would pull their heads out of their asses and actualy fully fund our troops to do their job and do it with proper resources. But hey, it's not like any of their kids are in Iraq, so it's prolly not a big deal having to piss around another month or so till the next war funding bill is drafted and put up to vote....

And yes, alot of our troops are overdeployed, tired, missing their families, and going through hell. It's too bad the US is the main factor in something the world as a whole should be trying to aid.

Quote:

I'm not to sure theyd appreciate random people speaking for them talking about things like pride.



Untill they can come home, someone needs to speak out for them... I'd rather be proud that our troops are doing something noble then pissed about it.

I think being proud in what they are doing is going to make them feel a hell of alot better about themselves, then saying things like, "it's a stupid pointless war, that we shouldn't be a part of". If they think I'm an ass for thinking like this, I'll appologize to each and every one of them I come across.

Untill they can come home, I will them and our

Troops, kick some ass!

Last edited by JaconClay; 06/05/07 09:47 PM.

Jacon Clay 3xGM mage voted as "The Worst Red Ever" "I'm okay at PvP... But what I lack in skill, I make up for in Luck" "I love Wisps!" ~ the day 4 wisps killed 3 SL blues chasing my red. The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Derid Offline OP
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
OP Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6

Eh, so its up to you then to raise the self-esteem of the troops or something? Gimme a break man. Some might want to stay over there for whatever reason, but thats not all of them by a long shot. Noone said they werent or shouldnt be proud of their service and work, but letting pride keep you in a place where your buddies are getting blown up solely for prides sake is foolhardy.

Your post and overall tone is a very emotional one, which though understandable strikes at the heart of why we cant as a nation elect good leadership. We need to think more logically about things.

First off, the UN. Do you REALLY want to see the UN as a sovereign body? Seriously. Do you really want the Euros and Russians and Chinese telling you what to do? World Govt is a bad bad idea.

The reality is there are no superheros, there are no world police, the people who should have done something about Saddam was the Iraqis themselves.
Good intentions are nice, but the reality is very unpleasant.

Your emotional appear to create the US and UN as worldwide liberators from all "tyrrany" is an interesting one, but one western nation no matter how rich cannot successly nation-build one arab country, no matter how hard it tries. They are Arabs, not Europeans. They have different cultures and traditions and ways of thinking and more. Frankly given the results and expenditure , of this and other previous foreign intervention adventures, I would think that people would realize that we should be looking after ourselves, not the rest of the world.

Our own traditions of having a free republic are under enough threat here at home for one thing. We cannot (or will not, as a practical matter) force the cultures of others to change through violence, and most cultures arent capable of sustaining a western style democratic nation anyhow.

But anyhow, if you want to "free" the whole world by force of arms, feel free. Go pick up a rifle and join whatever revolutionaries are fighting against the tyran of that particular country, and I will in all honesty and enthusiasm wish you well. Just dont try and say its the national duty of all of us, and claim rightousness supports taking the tax dollars and family members of the rest of us forcibly away to achieve that objective.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,576
Likes: 13
KGB Supreme Knight
King's High Council
**
Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
King's High Council
**
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,576
Likes: 13
Quote:

one western nation no matter how rich cannot successly nation-build one arab country, no matter how hard it tries.



They said the same thing about Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany following WWII. It took quite a while for both of those, but I think the end result worked out pretty well.

Nobody said it would be easy. In fact, it's damned hard, but I wouldn't say it was impossible.


To the everlasting glory of the infantry...

Owain ab Arawn
KGB Supreme Knight
King's High Council
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Derid Offline OP
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
OP Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6

Well, first and foremost, there is a big difference between Germans, Japanese and Arabs. Totally different culture. Totally different circumstances.

Secondly, back during ww2 era, we had some decent leadership. Abysmal leadership from the current administration does cloud the issue.

Most importantly, if we were going to succeed, doing so in afghanistan first was far far more important than attempting to do so in Iraq.

So anyhow, bad parralel.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 1
KGB Supreme Knight
****
Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 1
There is always 3 sides to an issue. Like with how well Bush is doing his job..

One side says he is doing great hes the right man for the job.
Second side says hes a frickin idiot and should be hug from his balls till next leap year.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 721
KGB Supreme Knight
****
Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
****
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 721
Quote:

If anyone is serriously considering Hillary as a viable option for president, I suggest you do a search on a Florida attourney named Jack Thompson, Hillary is backing his 'holy war'. He is dead set in his mind that ALL video games are evil and train those who use them to become merciless killers. I'm all for a female president, I just don't want anything to do with any caddidate male or female that wants to target my video games.




And don't forget that Hilary, (and Obama for that matter), is also on the list of politicians who take money from the RIAA:

Consumerist Article - Contact Information For 50 Politicians Who Take Campaign Money From The RIAA


- Wildcard / Tiernan
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 160
Band 3
***
Offline
Band 3
***
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 160
Quote:


Eh, so its up to you then to raise the self-esteem of the troops or something? Gimme a break man. Some might want to stay over there for whatever reason, but thats not all of them by a long shot. Noone said they werent or shouldnt be proud of their service and work, but letting pride keep you in a place where your buddies are getting blown up solely for prides sake is foolhardy.

Your post and overall tone is a very emotional one, which though understandable strikes at the heart of why we cant as a nation elect good leadership. We need to think more logically about things.




What I'm saying has nothing to do with troop moral or self esteem. I'm pointing ouit the basic fact that once the government decided to send our troops into a war, (even if it was all based on lies or not) we should stand behind them till they compleat the job and not suddenly decide midway that "ooops it was a bad idea" and try to pull out halfway. As for some wanting to stay over there, I really doubt any want to be there, but all the troops I've talked to seem to be saying they want to get their job (objective) done and get out of the hell they're in. Get it done then leave. It doesn't have anything to do with pride, it is part of 'Living the Army Values' to them. Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage. These values are what they are as much as their training as firing a gun. These and namely, 'DUTY', especialy to 'fullfill their obligations' and going 'one assignment onto another' is why they stay to finish the job. Pulling them out before they succeed, violates their training and disgraces/dishonors them. It might not have been right that they were sent there, but since they were, let them do their job.

You are absolutly right in that last part, we need to logicaly elect good leadership.

Quote:

First off, the UN. Do you REALLY want to see the UN as a sovereign body? Seriously. Do you really want the Euros and Russians and Chinese telling you what to do? World Govt is a bad bad idea.

The reality is there are no superheros, there are no world police, the people who should have done something about Saddam was the Iraqis themselves.




I'm not really where you get the idea I'd like to see the UN as a governing body... I'm against world government as much as I'm against people like Hillary and Thompson trying to take away my videogames. My point about the UN is that it is supposed to ensure things like 'basic human rights'. Honestly, I feel being a part of the UN and NATO do more damage to our country then the supposed good it is supposed to bring. While the Iraqi peoples should have been the ones to do something, they didn't or couldn't, and THAT is where the UN should have done something other then waving their finger.

As for the link, this is what I was talking about, we're looking at what the media has to say about our involvement in the war. Not supprisingly, it's showing us just how much of a 'negative impact' we're having on these people. First I'd like to point out that it's based on a survey or Iraqi civilians, any of whom could be the terrorist/extreamists that blend right into their population and love to use our own media for their propiganda. Secondly, the majority of responsibility of these deaths falls in the 'unknown' area and later on show that insurgent forces are causing more civilian deaths then colation forces. Thirdly, doing the math, these piecharts are innaccurate in their displays. Which is prolly the result that 'statistics and charts' can be made to show what the person collecting the information wants it to show, and the media/news sells so well when it's based on fear, death and distruction. It doesn't suprise me at all that these statistics are showing such mass amounts of death.

Quote:

Your emotional appear to create the US and UN as worldwide liberators from all "tyrrany" is an interesting one, but one western nation no matter how rich cannot successly nation-build one arab country, no matter how hard it tries. They are Arabs, not Europeans. They have different cultures and traditions and ways of thinking and more. Frankly given the results and expenditure , of this and other previous foreign intervention adventures, I would think that people would realize that we should be looking after ourselves, not the rest of the world.

Our own traditions of having a free republic are under enough threat here at home for one thing. We cannot (or will not, as a practical matter) force the cultures of others to change through violence, and most cultures arent capable of sustaining a western style democratic nation anyhow.




The statements that where made about the UN and US liberating other from tyrany is more a reason as to why we should support our troops in finishing their job over there. I'd rather see us not involved with the UN and tend to our own personal problems here at home. I agree fully with you on the fact we should look after ourselves and not the rest of the world. I'm not sure why you think that the Iraqi people are being 'forced' into change through violence... They seemed to have made a relatively peacefull change from dictatorship to democracy by their own choice. They took their former dictator to trial and found him guilty and had him executed, all on their own. Whether or not they are capable of sustaining it is another matter... The main cause of chaos currently is between religious factions who are fueling hate towards the US because we haven't left yet because the Iraqi new government cannot sustain itself yet. If their new government falls these factions will most likely try and move in to grab power along with boardering countries.

Quote:

But anyhow, if you want to "free" the whole world by force of arms, feel free. Go pick up a rifle and join whatever revolutionaries are fighting against the tyran of that particular country, and I will in all honesty and enthusiasm wish you well. Just dont try and say its the national duty of all of us, and claim rightousness supports taking the tax dollars and family members of the rest of us forcibly away to achieve that objective.




I have do desire to 'free' anything. Frankly the rest of the world can kill off their own peoples or blow each other to hell for all I care. I'd rather see the world population brought down some anyways because I'm getting sick of these bleeding heart commercials about hungry orphans in Africa. I think more along the lines 'who the hell cares? we've enough starving kids on the streets in America that no one seems to give a damn about.'

I claim neither 'national duty' nor 'rightousness' as my only real objectives are to sit here and play video games untill I'm no longer able to. Tax dollars should be spent on bettering our country, and family members should only be taken away if they're defending our country as an objective...

The fact remains that our troops are over there, and should be fully funded with as many tax dollars as needed to get them home sooner and safer then later and unsafe.

Do I like taxes? NO, but I want my friends and family back ASAP just as much as everyone else who has friends and family there. We're not going to get them back quickly if we keep trying to nickle and dime every thing in this war.


Jacon Clay 3xGM mage voted as "The Worst Red Ever" "I'm okay at PvP... But what I lack in skill, I make up for in Luck" "I love Wisps!" ~ the day 4 wisps killed 3 SL blues chasing my red. The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5