2005-10-01 [Dil*]: But how the heck did we get there before everyone else? For one, we live up here, and you guys live down there...o.o

2005-10-01 [Ri'hala]: Good point o-o;

2005-10-02 [Dil*]: And the whole thing about bush, when it comes down to it, it's about human decency, he should have the decency to get off his vacation while a crisis like this occurs.

2005-10-02 [Alkor]: When the world is under attack with war, BAD weather (that destroy's everything like hurrican Rita/Katrina), ect. the president shouldn;t take a vacation. Hell, he shouldn't have one.

2005-10-02 [Ri'hala]: He should get a vacation just like every other single person in America does. He's not the only one who runs the country, he's just the head of the Executive branch. Duh.

2005-10-02 [Dil*]: He has like a billion vacations.

2005-10-03 [Maurer's conclusions]: Under his (mis)rule, America has come under many attacks, both natural and human, and also declared war on a few places, so therefore I do find it rather strange that Bush manages to find time to take the most vacation as a president in American history...

2005-10-03 [Ri'hala]: Does no one else notice that he's not the only one running this country, nor is he the "Head Honcho"? That woul be a dictatorship. Congress can overule almost any action the President takes, just as the Supreme court can overturn any law from Congress it deems to be contrary to the Constitution. And for the last time, he can't declare war. He does not hold that power. So if you really want to blame someone, blame the whole system. Which, in turn, would cause you to blame yourself and the whole of the American people, since we are, in fact, the ones who put all of these people in power. (And how the heck are the natural disasters the government's fault?!)

2005-10-03 [chasingpeace]: he can't exactly declare war, but when everyone seems to be under his control...he pretty much can. It seems like a dictatorship sometimes because if you don't agree with what he does, it's un-patriotic...which is why congress has been agreeing with him all this time...since 9/11, everything they do to oppose his movements is deemed unpatriotic. they also belittle anyone who doesn't see through they eyes of bush. And if he can't declare war, why did we go to iraq...he declared war, that's why...and congress is sitting in the palm of his hand, so they don't even have a second thought. They don't even read the bills anymore.i remember something in the news recently where they pretty much just

2005-10-03 [chasingpeace]: signed it and there was something in there that they actually didn't want...but it was out there anyway. It's the government's job to prevent national disasters from killing everyone...such as buying new and improved equipment, building better levys...things like that...preventing things that could effect us on a national scale...like the hurricanes. I still say that if the people were too poor to have transportation, they should have walked.

2005-10-04 [Maurer's conclusions]: Perhaps if you actually read what I posted, you wouldn't have to make such a pointless comment. I said that American, not Bush, declared war on some places. Also, I never said that natural disasters were his fault, just that they happened in his term, and that perhaps taht would be a reason for him to take less vacation.

2005-10-04 [chasingpeace]: Exactly america declared war, and bush made them do it. Everyone knew there was no reason for doing it...they were just forced into thinking that they were traitors if they didn't act like they wanted to go to war. also, ertakano...i was responding to your comment, i was commenting on ri'hala's...also...it's not OUR fault the shrub is in the white house, Gore got the popular vote.. the POEPLE voted for gore the ELECTORAL COLLEGE voted for the shrub. now that i think about it...i can understand Kerry's flip flopping...he was just agreeing with what was in the PEOPLE's best interest, not his. Don't get me wrong...i didn't really support him, he was just the lesser of the two evils.

2005-10-04 [Maurer's conclusions]: I was referring to Ri'hala's comment, not yours:P And it's unfair to say that Bush made them declare war. I think the true power lies in the hands of his neo-conservative allies, and media vehicles such as Fox TV, which puts everything in a pro-conservative light.

2005-10-04 [chasingpeace]: my dad watches fox, but he has something to contradict every statement they make. mostly the word 'donkey butt-hole' is mentioned. (without using explitives)

2005-10-04 [Dil*]: I blame the neo-cons.

2005-10-05 [Ylaraniala Majere]: Er, Bush literally can't make Congress do something. Truly not possible. And if you saw the Anti-Bush propaganda in America zansola, you would not say that. Neo-conservative though?

2005-10-05 [Alkor]: *sighs* How did america declare war and how did bush make us americans do it? Bush declared the flippin war.

2005-10-05 [Ri'hala]: He didn't declare war, he doesn't have the power!!! If the Amercian people honestly and truly rejected the war, we wouldn't have gone. Plain and simple. That's the whole point of a democracy. Same reason why we're allowed to bear arms, so we stay in power, not the government.

2005-10-05 [Maurer's conclusions]: We are just repeating the same arguments over and over again... Ri'hala, I must agree with you in that Bush was not alone in declaring the war, he had the backing of much of the population and the Congress...

2005-10-09 [chasingpeace]: oh yes...and saying that everyone is a traitor if they don't support the war is not making them support it. That's exactly what the patriot act i...anyone who doesn't support what bush does can be viewed as a terrorist. Our democracy doesn't work. the people haven't gotten what they wanted. they didn't want bush in office. EVER. the PEOPLE voted for gore. we (the people) are never completely in power. the government can always over rule us. Bush did not make us physically go to the polls and vote for war. he did it psychologically by saying that going against the war is unpatriotic and have anti-terrorist and anti-middle east campaigns. It's the same way the army recruits people.

2005-10-10 [Maurer's conclusions]: Then it's the people's fault if they get duped... 

2005-10-10 [Catlover]: You support the war, don't you? So therefore you must have been duped as well.

2005-10-10 [Maurer's conclusions]: I don't support the war, so I haven't been duped. I just think it is unfair to blame everything on the President, for two main reasons. Firstly, he is not the sole mover behind the war, you cannot forget his powerful neo-con allies. Secondly, the American people are to blame, for they put him in power for his second term (although in the 2000 election, we have the damned Electoral College to blame).

2005-10-11 [Ylaraniala Majere]: Duped nothing, the people who support the war have their own reasons, which we have already explained. Ertarkano is right, talking about this over and over is getting us nowhere. And zansola, you do realize that your rights include moving out of the country once you are older... thus you don't need to deal with it much longer.

2005-10-13 [chasingpeace]: yes, but at that same exact time, bush will no longer be president....and hopefully someone better will come along who will actually listen to the american people.

2005-10-13 [Ylaraniala Majere]: That one is under debate (as far as your definition), but a significant portion of people voted for Bush last term and it is likely that about half of the presidents voted in in your lifetime will be somewhat like him.

2005-10-13 [Ri'hala]: Oh lord, I hope Hillary doesn't run in 2008...she scares me, honestly.

2005-10-16 [chasingpeace]: people voted for bush last term because they were afraid to change leaders in a time of hardship. it's the same reson roosevelt wsa elected for 4 terms...because there was a war going on.

2005-10-18 [esperanza]: Eh - I highly doubt that Hillary will actually be elected - if there is any ounce of sense left in the American public, then they won't. Plus I believe the thought of a women president almost scares us now, so more than likely she won't win.. Or at least, we can pray she doesn't. (hi! lol.)

2005-10-18 [Catlover]: What's so scary about a woman president?

2005-10-18 [Maurer's conclusions]: Esperanza, I do disagree. If there is any ounce of sense left in the American public, they would have voted for anyone but Bush (Nader, in my opinion.) However, history has proven that such things rarely happen.

2005-10-18 [Dil*]: those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it...was that the quote?

2005-10-19 [Maurer's conclusions]: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, I believe.

2005-10-20 [esperanza]: There is nothing scary about a women president; only that it is highly observed that most likely the rest of the public won't vote for her; how many people out there are REALLY ready for one? I bet you theres alot of people who aren't. There is nothing scary about one. They didn't want to change - 'Don't swap horses in the middle of the stream'. They wanted to give Bush a chance to get us through this thing - and personally, bush was the lesser of the evils in my opinion. Nader - I'm sorry, but I don't see him ever winning. And Kerry was even worse, so despite the mess-ups of bush he was the lesser of the evils, in my opinion.

2005-10-20 [Ri'hala]: I really dun have a problem with a woman president as long as she's not more emotional than logical. I just don't really like Hillary.

2005-10-21 [Ylaraniala Majere]: Same here, but as soon as a woman gets to be president there will be people wanting to vote for the emotional ones... so I don't know. What I do know is that I don't want Hillary in the presidency. Even some of the Bill Clinton supporters really dislike her.

2005-10-21 [Maurer's conclusions]: So you believe that above all leaders should be rational rather than emotional?

2005-10-21 [Ri'hala]: No, emotion should be integrated into the whole Presidential persona, but not extreme emotional reactions. Same thing with arguments. It's better to stay calm and looks at things rationally than go into attack mode and ruin everything. Of course, anger isn't the only emotion that needs controlling, sorrow can incapacitate as well. Ya know what I mean? Or did I just totally run off track and end up talking about nothing? c.c;;;

2005-10-21 [Maurer's conclusions]: No it makes sense what you say, I just had this thought perhaps for some reason you would support a cold and chilling rational leader devoid of any sentiments of emotion or passion, but I'm glad to see it's not the case.

2005-10-21 [Ri'hala]: Oh, lol XD

2005-10-22 [esperanza]: O.o I just don't think the US is ready for a women president - not that the whole surroundings aren't; I just don't believe the majority of the people would go for it - despite what I think. Some women - in fact, a lot, are very much guided by emotions and do not take time to think. We must be judged on that fact (don't get me wrong, I'm a girl...). If we are just picked for office because we are - it doesnt' work. Our husbands were president, we should be!!!

2005-10-22 [Dil*]: You're making an encompassing stereotype about women, sorry about being such a feminist about this, but that's just a load of hogwash. Even if your stereotypical statement was true, it doesn't matter, what matters is the merits of the candidate. Nobody stated they wanted a women president just for the heck of it.

2005-10-23 [esperanza]: Of course - but some women would think that way; some men would think 'hell no' to the women canidate because 'they are all emotional!' well, it does depend upon the canidate because some men are too emotional;. My feelings are completely not included - I'm only stating what some people think. Go girls, because well, they're a girl. Boo on girls because well, they're girls. You see - I'm only saying a few, but maybe they make up the majority. You never know how the entire group thinks because somepeople just... won't admit to stuff.

2005-10-23 [Dil*]: alright...more ambiguous stuff, but it seems I have driven my point across.

2005-10-25 [lohawefniwubf]: An advisor comes into the president, and is going through the morning reports, and says "Oh and 2 Brazilian(spelling?) soldiers were killed in Iraq 4 hours ago." At this the president starts crying and wailing! All his staff & advisors are shocked, and the one that brought in the report goes "Excuse me Mr.President... whats the matter?" The president looks up and goes "How many is a Brazilion exactly?"

2005-10-25 [Ylaraniala Majere]: Um, is that supposed to be a joke? I seriously doubt that that is real, and if it isn't, it counts as a flame.

2005-10-25 [Maurer's conclusions]: http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-774.htm

2005-10-25 [Maurer's conclusions]: http://www.jokaroo.com/funnyvideos/scriptedconference.html

2005-10-26 [lohawefniwubf]: Oh it was a joke... why don't Americans have a sense of humour.

2005-10-26 [Maurer's conclusions]: http://www.lifeisajoke.com/videos8.htm

2005-10-26 [Ri'hala]: I have a sense of humor ;-; A whacked one, I'll give you that, but I still have one XP

2005-10-27 [Ylaraniala Majere]: We do have a sense of humor, it's just that making a joke about someone that is important is in bad taste.

2005-10-27 [Dil*]: why not?

2005-10-29 [lohawefniwubf]: It is not in bad taste, it's just funny. Bad taste is like: What does 'wife' stand for? Washing Ironing Food Entertainment; Now thats bad taste.

2005-11-04 [Ylaraniala Majere]: It's still bad taste to joke about someone that others care about. *shrugs slightly* Anything new, guys?

2005-11-04 [Ri'hala]: My One Act Play team is going to State finals, and I made the All Star cast. Oh wait, you meant political-wise... >_> XD *coughs* Of course I wasn't bragging!! Why would any of you say such a thing!! << >>

2005-11-06 [Dil*]: I should join the debate team, but I have no time.

2005-11-06 [Doormat]: So...How 'bout that death count in Iraq?

2005-11-06 [Maurer's conclusions]: Civilian or military?

2005-11-06 [Maurer's conclusions]: Civ death toll minimum: 26797 / maximum: 30163

2005-11-08 [Dil*]: ah.

2005-11-08 [KimoN]: A study from the lancet (realy respected journal) says 100000, but this was a while ago, so by now the death toll has risen from this http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

2005-11-14 [Ylaraniala Majere]: *shudders* Poor people...

2005-11-27 [chasingpeace]: right now i'm worried about how bush isn't anti torture...when he was the head of his fraternity (sp?), they branded the plaedges with red-hot coat hangers...and just recently he vetoed a bill that was agianst torture...i don't know the specifics...

2005-11-28 [Alkor]: that's cause BUSH IS A SCUM BAG

2005-11-28 [Ri'hala]: Was that just me, or was that flaming?

2005-11-29 [Alkor]: Mybe both but havent you noticed all the familys that are dying from starvation? *thinks* OH, that's cause Bush spent all the money on BOMBS and other weapons. Looks like bush doesn't care about people in this place. Since he was elected, there was nothing but WARS. Mr. Kerry would have been a better president. At-least he would have supported his country un-like BUSH who doesnt.

2005-11-30 [Ri'hala]: It is not, and has never been the government's, or Bush's, responsibility to provide for the people. For a GOOD reason. The WHOLE point of the good ole U.S.A. is to have a small central government, and stronger local governments, BOTH of which are CHOSEN and RUN by THE PEOPLE. It is THE PEOPLE'S responsibility to care for THEMSELVES, not the government. If we put our welfare in the hands of the government, we would be baring our own throats to the blade of dictatorship. And, for another thing, the rate of people dying from malnutrition and other things (besides murder) is steady, and in the medium ranges, compared to pretty much every other country in the world.

2005-11-30 [Ri'hala]: The reason that the deathrate is like that is, *ding dong!* Maybe the not all the people in the U.S. are helpless idiots who can't wipe their own behinds without government assistance. We pretty much know how to handle ourselves. To support my information about death rates, have a look-see at this http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004395.html and this http://siakhenn.tripod.com/death.html . Read up on your facts before you go and mouth off about biased opinions you got second hand.

2005-11-30 [Alkor]: How the fuck can people take care of themselves when they are POOR, HOMELESS and STARVING? it's impossible. I dont need to read shit. I know what im talking about and all im hearing from you is just a bunch o f BLABBER. Bush invaded fucken Iraq and killed millions. Captured Saddam cause they think he was responsible for the attack 911 but he WASNT. Said he has Weaposn mass. destruction, but did they find any? No they didnt. Bush should think twice before he starts all this shit in america which he doesnt care for.

2005-11-30 [Alkor]: All he does is sit behind his desk and let's others fight his wars and laughs at pople dying and how stupid the US is. He doesnt care for anyone. He sucks. Ever since he was elected there was nothing but fucken TROUBLE in the US. So, dont give me shit about how good George Bush can be cause he cannt be good. He doesnt even know why hes president and what he is doing to make the US a better place to be.

2005-11-30 [KimoN]: Ri'hala, if u read the articlethe study measured the rate of violent death due to the invasion: 'Before the invasion, most people died of heart attacks, stroke and chronic illness. The risk of a violent death is now 58 times higher than it was before the invasion.' 100000 probably up to 200000. 'Half of these are women and children', so they are not insurgents, they are civilian iraqi deaths. Bush, and the American army, are INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS.

2005-12-01 [Dil*]: Ever watch 'The Corporation' The western world is basically the cause of all the poverty and starvation of third world countries as well as the continueing destruction of the world's environment.

2005-12-01 [Alkor]: The western world isnt the cause of freaken Poverty and Starvation. Geze, how dumb are you guys.

2005-12-01 [Ri'hala]: How can you expect to be taken seriously if you refuse to take us seriously *points to the rude remark just made*? Or, if you can't even control steady trickle of obscenities from your mouth enough to speak in a vaguely civilized manner?

2005-12-01 [Alkor]: *sighs* Im being serious. How is the western world the cause of "Poverty" and "Starvation"? Can you explain that?

2005-12-01 [Dil*]: Ever read about third world debt and children exploitation via corporations in third world countries? Why are people in africa starving to death while people in America die of over-eating. There's lots to be explained here.

2005-12-01 [KimoN]: I agree...its true big international corporation exploit the trade rules in order to exploit the resources and man power of nations with corrupt governments/dictatorships. The IMF and American government, and most other western states fully supports this and i find it disgusting. We also sell weapons to these governments to suppress their people. All these civil wars you haer about in the third world are due to unwanted western influence, whereby the revolters are branded 'terrorists' or 'human rights violators'. 

2005-12-01 [chasingpeace]: i see no one really commented on how bush likes to torture people...and you know what New Orleans is doing with the MILLIONS of dollars the government shouldn't have given them? Free internet for the entire city...yeah, like most of those people can even AFFORD to have computers now, let alone still have them...

2005-12-01 [Dil*]: The western world uses approximately 80% of all the world's resources and goods. God we're fat (metaphorically and literally).

2005-12-02 [chasingpeace]: and how much of that 80% is from america? theres a whole bunch more well-developed countries in the western hemisphere than the eastern hemisphere...you have to put it all in perspective. In a lot of eastern countries, people are happy to get a bowl of rice once a day beacause their countries are underdeveloped and poor or corrupt. I'm not saying that america doesn't eat a lot, but when over half the populations of china and india only eat a bowl of rice a day...c'mon...who's gonna seem like the obese country? In a lot of eastern countries, the only people who eat more than that are extremely rich, but in america and a lot of western countries, people can afford three meals a day.

2005-12-02 [chasingpeace]: and cars and homes, and all of the other resorces...it's only because our country is more developed, our entire side of the world is more developed.

2005-12-03 [Dil*]: Since we're more developed we have the right to exploit the world more and more efficiently. pfft.

2005-12-03 [Doormat]: So it's alright that kids in sweatshops get 10 cents a day, whereas big corporations that exploit them earn millions? Well, it's because the sweatshop workers live in less developed, poor, and corrupt. And the corporations exploiting them are doing nothing wrong of course.

2005-12-03 [chasingpeace]: that's not what i'm saying...it's not good for those things to happen, but that's the way it is right now, and the only reason the western part of the world uses 80% more resources is because we have the money to. I don't think you really understand how many resources go into things you use everyday...like the computer, or a car...the only reason it's 80% is because the west uses them the most...because we can afford them...just saying " The western world uses approximately 80% of all the world's resources and goods" doesn't give any information, really...it's a biased statistic. if you apply it to the real world, it makes sense...but if you apply it to a world where everyone has the same

2005-12-03 [chasingpeace]: salary, career, location...everything...then it would say that the western hemisphere is full of fatcats. In the real world, it makes perfect sense.

2005-12-04 [Dil*]: I'm just looking at consumption vs. population. Actually, it's so dang apparent you hardly need to even question those statistics. I got it via my grd. 11 social studies textbook Counterpoints.

2005-12-04 [chasingpeace]: ooohhh...grade 11 textbook? that's not the most reliable thing in the world...those statistics don't rule out anyvariables except for one. justbecause it's from a highschool level textbook doesn't mean its right.

2005-12-04 [Dil*]: "There is a price to be paid for the blood on which we dine" - NIN lyrics. It's true, ever wonder how we have all these luxeries? At the expense of what....the planet or exploiting poor people.

2005-12-04 [Catlover]: Grade 11 textbooks are probably more reliable than most things you read on the Internet. They have to be accurate, or schools wouldn't use them, would they?

2005-12-05 [Dil*]: yeah, better that a random blog site.

2005-12-05 [KimoN]: no one source is reliable. The only way to get an idea of the truth is to read from several sources, with several opinions, and judge which is right taking into account propaganda and the political atmosphere at the time.

2005-12-05 [Catlover]: That's what textbooks are supposed to do for you.

2005-12-05 [KimoN]: call me scheptical...but at my school they taught us that capitalism doesnt make the poor poorer and the rich richer.....yeah right!

2005-12-05 [Catlover]: I said "supposed to". And they're still more reliable than a random blog site.

2005-12-05 [KimoN]: cool

2005-12-06 [Dil*]: Capitalism relies on a consumer society. It's a selfish society.

2005-12-06 [Ylaraniala Majere]: Hey guys, I am shutting down this wiki for the moment... sorry... I need someone who is able to be on often and able to be fair (and I mean truly fair, unlike how I was that once) to take over the wiki. If any of you want to apply for the job, please message me... sorry to be doing this, but I am leaving Elftown except for very occasional visits.

2005-12-07 [lohawefniwubf]: Thats a low blow! No need to be insulting, she's leaving for other reasons. And this wiki has been up for a long time, we can't expect her to stay if it inconvienences her just for this wiki. Some one else can easily be appointed to be in charge.

2005-12-07 [Ri'hala]: Alkor, that's complete idiocy. She has every right to leave if she pleases, and it doesn't have to have a single thing to do with politics. First of all, if she didn't want Anti-bush propaganda in her wiki, she could simply monitor it and block and erase anyone who posts comments against Bush. Second of all, Elftown itself isn't even based in America. It's waaaay way over seas in Europe, so, for her to have joined Elftown for Bush support is ridiculous, and so is leaving it on account of opposition. And, once again, I find myself compelled to remind you that your rude and insolent behavior isn't very good for stimulating agreeing opinions. Please control yourself and at least

2005-12-07 [Ri'hala]: find a vaguely civilized manner of expressing yourself

2005-12-07 [Alkor]: Why should I?

2005-12-07 [Ri'hala]: If you are unable to figure that out for yourself, then you've just proven exactly why people shouldn't pay attention to your opinions. And- if you made that particular reply just to be rude and difficult-, the fact that you refuse to be considerate of others simply reinforces that particular point.

2005-12-08 [Dil*]: *shock*. Alkor you're being extremely rude and unreasonable. I don't support bush in the least bit, but I believe in civilized behavior. This is completely unacceptable and you're making all bush non-supporters look terrible. I hope you all don't get the wrong idea about bush non-supporters. This is just one bad egg. It's one thing to have a strong politcal viewpoint, but it's another to make such a bad personal attack. [Ylaraniala Majere], though we do not share the same political viewpoints, we get along fine outside this wiki and there's no point in alienating the other side.

2005-12-08 [Dil*]: To [Alkor]: I demand that you apologize.

2005-12-09 [Ylaraniala Majere]: On the other subject... as other circumstances have dictated, I do not have to shut down or leave the wiki. However, I have determined that in no way am I able to take care of this wiki myself, and I would like to have helpers sort out the acceptable posts and the deletion posts. PLEASE people, I really need some help here, so volunteer... it doesn't matter what stand you take on Bush as long as you are fair. Details will be explained.

2005-12-09 [Ylaraniala Majere]: See, Alkor, that's the kind of attitude *points at Dilandau* that is the reason why I allow people who dislike Bush on this wiki. YOUR kind of attitude is why I sometimes want to explode. Thus, Alkor: You're banned. For seriously breaking Rule #1 twice, Rule #3 twice, and Rule #6 once... in your last three posts. All messages that broke the rules shall be deleted and all comments by you will henceforth be deleted. (All those who want this person to apologize, I can be messaged at my house.)

2005-12-09 [Ylaraniala Majere]: ((I also second Dilandau's assessment of our association... we'd be friends if we didn't argue all the time, lol))

2005-12-10 [Ri'hala]: Many thanks to you two! (I also agree, if only we didn't argue XD)

2005-12-12 [Dil*]: Blah, people who get personal anger me. Then again, I think you may want to address some of the members of this wiki regarding people erasing bush haters association on several occasion... (not finger pointing to anyone in particular...there's just a higher possibility of a bush supporter doing it all those times and making a clone account).

2005-12-12 [Ri'hala]: I only have one account, so it's not me! *coughs and looks around suspiciously* Seriously, It's not me >>;

2005-12-14 [Ylaraniala Majere]: Well, anyone who did do that definitely isn't someone I support... in fact, I'm in defense of the Haters Association there. This wiki's member list was erased at least two times, I know exactly how that feels. A hint: The last person to edit a particular version is listed on the right at the bottom of the bar.

2005-12-14 [Dil*]: I know about the page versions, but they make clone accounts. It's just petty.

2005-12-14 [Ylaraniala Majere]: Yeah, I know...

2005-12-14 [Dil*]: yeah, I'll go address the bush haters page about people erasing your member's page then.

2005-12-14 [Ylaraniala Majere]: Thank you!

2005-12-17 [Ri'hala]: ^_^

2005-12-18 [Dil*]: did.

2005-12-18 [lohawefniwubf]: w00t no more Alkor.... Oh yeah, hey peeps hows it going? Got any fun plans for Christmas &/or New Years?

2005-12-19 [Ri'hala]: Ta. Lotsa parties ^^

2005-12-19 [Ylaraniala Majere]: Spending time with my family and boyfriend, maybe making a gingerbread house.

2005-12-20 [lohawefniwubf]: I've never seen a real gingerbread house... only fake display ones, that are gingerbread, but in-edible cause they are like covered in varnish.

2005-12-20 [Dil*]: are you serious?

2005-12-23 [lohawefniwubf]: Yup seriously

2005-12-23 [Dil*]: crazy aussie.

2005-12-23 [lohawefniwubf]: Not crazy, we just aren't really mad over edible houses here.

2005-12-23 [Dil*]: crazy. :p

2005-12-23 [lohawefniwubf]: No :P

2005-12-23 [Dil*]: Yes, because I said so. ;)

2005-12-23 [lohawefniwubf]: Pfft, you're wrong

2005-12-23 [Dil*]: No, I can't be wrong because I'm perfect. :P

2005-12-23 [lohawefniwubf]: *rolls eyes*

2005-12-23 [Dil*]: yeah yeah, I have that effect on people sometimes. >.<

2005-12-23 [lohawefniwubf]: Sometimes?

2005-12-23 [Dil*]: Yes.

2006-01-01 [Ri'hala]: Wow, more uninformed people to roll in the New Year! >>; XD j/k. Each to his own. Happy New Year everyone.

2006-01-07 [lohawefniwubf]: Bush rules!

HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL!

2006-01-07 [Ylaraniala Majere]: lol, happy new year!! And perhaps a little more discussion to start it, eh?

2006-01-07 [lohawefniwubf]: Yeah... nice argument (not)

2006-01-08 [chasingpeace]: Clinton lied about not having an affair, bush lied about there being WMAs in Iraq...and therefore there was a reason to go to war there...nobody died when Clinton lied. That MAY be what alkor was trying to say, but generally that was a very unintelligent comment.

2006-01-08 [Dil*]: They think Saddam is a madman with WMD, but he didn't have any. They lied. It would have made much more sense to attack N. Korea if you're going for crazy madmen with nuclear arms. 

2006-01-08 [KimoN]: If the American governments want to be heros and protect civilians from dictators, why dont they go and remove the Burmease dictatorship from power? (The burmease government has HUGE human rights violations, they keep their population as virtual slaves). The reason is simple, they have no rich resource worthy enough for plundering. If the west KNEW that iraq had WMD, they would have not attacked in the first place. WMD are a detterant to attack, which is why the US is too chicken to attack north Korea. WMD and reliving civilians from dictatorships are BOGUS reasons for invading Iraq. There is another reason, and i think deep down we all know what that reason is. The Black gold.

2006-01-08 [Dil*]: Uhm, he means oil buddy. And he's also a anti-bush person.

2006-01-09 [lohawefniwubf]: Actually, proof has shown he DID have them, they destroyed them and the equipment used for making them prior to the invasion.

2006-01-09 [KimoN]: direct me to the proof, as in the paper, journal, or article. THere is no proof, if there was, Tony Blair would have presented it to the British public a long time ago. Hes been grilled very badly for it.

2006-01-10 [lohawefniwubf]: Because the equipment that is used to create WMD's can be used for more then just that. So they can be attacked by people saying "How do you know they'd use it for that?" But the fact tat they destroyed that eqiupment before the invasion, kinda tips it up that they weren't using it for the right reasons.

2006-01-10 [KimoN]: so are you saying that you have a hunch Saddam had the weapons and then destroyed them before the invasion? im afraid that is just speculation, not fact. This type of evidence is not concrete and is not admissible in any court of law, precisely why the iraq war was outlawed in the international courts (ignored by the American government).

2006-01-10 [lohawefniwubf]: No it is fact, when I next have the money I will purchase the book and give you the info.

2006-01-10 [KimoN]: The UN state that there were no WMD in iraq after 1994: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm  and http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html

2006-01-10 [lohawefniwubf]: DOn't you think it's a bit convienient that inspectors had tot give 48 hours notice to the area they were inspecting? Eye-witness accounts have told that in the 48 hours leading up to the inspection, all you would see is empty trucks drive into the area, and full ones drive out. When the inspectors arrived, nothing was there.

2006-01-10 [KimoN]: You seem to overlook the fact that biological, chemical and nuclear weapons leave traces behind an area they were kept in. Sophisticated sensors and techniques are used which can pick up minisule traces (we are talking about a few hundred atoms) of any type of element or compund. U really think search teams would damage their ability to trace WMD? They are scientists! the best are used for such important matters! They arent morons!

2006-01-10 [KimoN]: Just like in all those detective and murder programs, you cant fool investigative techniques, and criime leaves a trace behind.

2006-01-10 [lohawefniwubf]: I'm very much aware of that, but because they didn't have the actual items it was kind of over looked; thats what the whole flurry is about. Not that they have found traces, but that they haven't found the actual things. So there fore they have concluded they weren't there.

2006-01-10 [KimoN]: When there is a flurry, there is no 100% truth or fact. This is why WMD is not a reason to go to war. It is circumstancial evidence, would you use it in a court of law to prosecute a murderer? no. How an earth can circumstancial evidance be a basis to go to war? It is a great Crime.

2006-01-10 [lohawefniwubf]: Well it's good enough that they got rid of Saddum, he has been funding and aiding terrorists for years.

2006-01-10 [KimoN]: Thats not true, there is no proof of that either. REgardless, it was still an illegal war, and i find it astonishing that countries in this day and age act like they have just found daddies gun. What happened to law and order? Thsi is what seperates us from terrorists. Just like the terrosorists on 9/11 attacked a civilan population without legal backing, so has America attacked a soverign state (100000 civilain death toll) with out legal backing, which makes America a terrorist state.

2006-01-11 [lohawefniwubf]: Well, personality, I don't think wars should at all BE legal, thats screwed. Since when has war been something of legality? I mean come on, stupidity who ever passed that bill or what ever you Americans call it.

2006-01-11 [KimoN]: First of all im not american and i am antiwar. By 'illegallity', this means that there was not even a threat from Iraq, meaning that pre-emptive action could not be justified (i think any mature Country would need more than just proof for preemptive action). I see the american act of violence on Iraq as an invasion.

2006-01-11 [Catlover]: I thought the fact that was an invasion is accepted - I don't know what else you'd call it...

2006-01-11 [Dil*]: Saddam was a horrible person/leader, but he had no ties with Bin Laden.

2006-01-11 [Ri'hala]: Psht. Maybe not directly, But he was definitely in with Al Queda

2006-01-11 [Dil*]: No way, Saddam and Osama hated eachother.

2006-01-12 [KimoN]: Sorry i meant ruthless conquest for natural resources which was un-provoked.

2006-01-12 [chasingpeace]: if Saddam was tied in with Al Queda, there would have been a small reason to go to war with iraq. There was no connection at all, but there is one with that one country...can't remember...middle east...shaped like boot...america is friends with them even though 9 out of the 13(?) 9/11 terrorists were from that country...?

2006-01-12 [lohawefniwubf]: They all had Iraqi (spelling) passports.

2006-01-13 [Dil*]: 9 out of the 13 were from bloody saudi arabia.

2006-01-13 [KimoN]: Hey and just cos a few terrorists are from one place no need to invade the country! All the irish terrorists were irish...but invading northen ireland wouldnt change a thing, except make things worse!

2006-01-13 [Dil*]: *nods*

2006-01-14 [lohawefniwubf]: Well, didn't the British kinda do that a couple of hundred years ago?

2006-01-14 [KimoN]: Which highlights the point about invasions being wrong in the first place. Thats the whole reason why there were irish terrorists. Because their were so few of the the only way they could fight back is using that method of fighting, which begs the question....were they freedom fighters or terrorists? the same question may be asked about the 'terrorist insurgents' in iraq. However, attaking civilians is terrorist, so madrid, twin towers and london are definately categorised as terrorist.

2006-01-14 [lohawefniwubf]: I don't understand what they accomplish by attack the civies, most of them don't even agree with whats going on.

2006-01-14 [Dil*]: It's just a couple of crazies, definately not the majority of middle eastern people think it's okay to suicide bomb stuff.

2006-01-14 [lohawefniwubf]: Especially since the ones doing it don't seem to care if they get Amercian soldiers or Iraquis

2006-01-15 [chasingpeace]: so doen't the american armies count as terrorists? the directly bombed civilian areas because saddam or members of his family might have been there...and after that thery dropped yellwpackages of food and stuff, which, by the wall, look almost exactly like bombshells...

2006-01-15 [KimoN]: I agree, i think the american armies have committed acts of terrorist. i mean, is there really a difference between a civilian being killed by a bomb shell, and and a plane crashing into a building? noot really. Sure, America was victim to terrorism, all the American army did, was kill tens of thousands of civilians in return. Two wrongs dont make a right

2006-01-15 [lohawefniwubf]: I think you mean act of terrorism.

2006-01-15 [KimoN]: u get the drift :P

2006-01-16 [chasingpeace]: it happened more than once...

2006-01-16 [lohawefniwubf]: I think it's funny that Americans seem to shoot as many of their own guys by accident as they do the enemy on purpose.

2006-01-17 [Ylaraniala Majere]: Nah, actually there IS a difference. An act of terrorism is when the person doing the act means for people to become terrified. Also, where is your proof that Americans HAVE killed tens of thousands of civilians? You seem to require proof for your opponents but none for yourself.

2006-01-17 [KimoN]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html These are surveys, that have been produced by the LANCET journal, as you know, very prestigious. This estimates were done about a year, and they show that since the war started (up till the time of collection of information) 100, 000 iraqis have been killed directly due to the invasion, half being women and children. I guess they selectively miss this stuff out in the rightwing controlled US media.

2006-01-19 [chasingpeace]: isn't that the point of this war? to have people become so terrified that they just give up? there doesn't seem to be any other point to it.

2006-01-20 [Dil*]: Proof?! my god! (or lack thereof), we've been spamming you guys links for such a long time.

2006-01-21 [chasingpeace]: proof for my statement? there doesn't seem to be any other explaination...

2006-01-21 [KimoN]: Dilandau was talking about Majere's statement :P

2006-01-22 [KimoN]: She has a statement 4 positions above this one :)

2006-01-23 [Dil*]: I've posted so many anti-bush links on this page it's not even funny.

2006-01-25 [Ylaraniala Majere]: Alkor. LEAVE ALREADY. Haven't you noticed that I've deleted every one of your posts? And yeah, I know Dilandau, I noticed you posting links. Not many other people though.

2006-04-17 [Maurer's conclusions]: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ This website gives evidence of every single body it has, citing various sources. Though they have stopped now. They do not count kills for which there appears to be no evidence.

2006-04-28 [tiragon]: Terrorism- "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. " This definition brought to you by www.dictionary.com   http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

2006-05-09 [chasingpeace]: I'd have to say that the U.S. armed forces are commiting terrorism

2006-08-10 [Bumsoft]: A little like Israel. Oh the irony of the siutation.

2006-09-08 [elfboy]: Ouch. I'm in the Army, you know!

2006-09-09 [chasingpeace]: the use of violence or threats to intimidat eor coerce is the definition of terrorism...

2007-03-19 [earthkynd]: _>

2007-03-27 [lohawefniwubf]: You people are rediculous

2007-05-09 [Dil*]: you mean: 'ridiculous'.

2007-05-13 [lohawefniwubf]: That's the word.

2010-04-28 [Mortified Penguin]: ...*eats ramen*...

Bush rules!

2010-08-22 [lohawefniwubf]: *Nods in agreement, mouth full of taco*