Rain

I'm not a sensitive person at all, in fact I think it scares some people, they think I'm going to suddenly snap and have a break down. I could probably watch as my loved ones are killed and I probably wouldn't shed a tear. :/ . I guess I could fake cry just so people don't think I'm heartless. i'm not a crying person, getting hugs doesn't make me feel better. I guess I just think differently, I think in terms of groups. ie. they are all humans, all humans die, therefore death has to happen to everyone, no matter when it happens. I dunno :confused: . Death isn't a bad thing, neither is poverty, all humans end up the same at the end, dead. if they lived a life of poverty, wealth or depression doesn't matter. Please don't feel like I'm completely senseless :/ , I feel sympathy, I just feel it differently.

don't worry Stern, she was just kiddin :nice:

So drink your gin and tonica and smoke your marijuanika

oh, nevermind, I didn't look close enough :wink3: . lol I just realized she's wearing All-Stars! Those don't quite fit the rest of her costume.

Can anyone else cry at will?

Ya, thats what happened when I told people to go to Google and type weapons of mass destruction and click I'm feeling lucky. Their like "Rain, this is stupid, it doesn't even work, I have to go" and I'm like "AAAGH!" its really frustrating. :dozey: I'm ok now :nice:

hehe The Sony "KillStick"

Yes... Does this look like a boy to anyone else?

Yes you have pleased me, you small peasants!

Exactly! You got it right on. So far I agree with this whole page.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the only people in the US that were negatively affected by the "war" were families of lost soldiers, and there were very few. Even so, they make such a big deal about losing soldiers these days. I mean, I'm sure these were great people and they will be missed, but what does the rest of the country care? people are dying every second, besides their families, no one knew these people that died for them. I don't think losing soldiers is a legitimate excuse for being angry about this "war". So what is the reason to be angry? If there was no media, I don't know if even half of the US would have have found out about it.

:lol: :lol: Yes musiclover, that will lighten up anyones day.

I CAN, AND I WILL!

But there were video game threads in there! Let me quote the judge in Harvey Birdman by saying "Bootylicious! You better have a dam good explanation for this"

Well, you see, there really isn't anything wrong with war. If you look at the worlds past, not too long ago people would invade each other all the time. Its how the great wall of china was built. The human race has not "evolved" since then, human nature is to destroy and protect yourself. Its what humans do, they can't help it. Only recently have humans learned how to control themselves. Saddam must have missed this memo. So, by the US taking Saddam out by force they were doing something necessary. Saddam just couldn't control himself, he was given way too much power for the kind of man he is, and weapons of mass destruction or not he was dangerous. What can I say? He was a scary guy ( :wideeyed: ), I can understand why Bush would feel threatened by him. I think the reasoning behind it was also that Bush felt responsible for the rest of the world being the current "super-power". Really though, if he hadn't taken action what would have happened? Another terrorist attack? No one really knows, but it the long run I think his choice was for the better. It wasn't like putting up a map and throwing a dart at it to see which country to attack next. It was not senseless violence, his actions were justified. Bush gave a lot of different excuses for this war, he was hoping that the public would accept one of them. I think he realized the real reason for the war was not to find or destroy the weapons of mass destruction, it was just to get saddam out of power. Besides, senseless violence or not, what difference does it make? Are Americans still happy? Are they still living their lives normally? Do they still go to McDonalds? To the best of my knowledge, Yes. This wasn't even a real war, it was a one sided raid. The US could not have lost no matter what so why not do it?

The first one looks like someone scribbled on a guitar and thought "hey these scribbles bear a vague resemblance to the names Chris and jon! I should sell it on ebay and claim it is autographed by two members of Coldplay!"

*applauds* I say well put.

<Can do <cannot do

that actually doesn't even make sense. its not an oxymoron, it just doesn't make sense.

...no bananas? :stunned: or ... a katana and I know how to use it! :wink3:

not really, bombing for peace, you would use fighting to stop a war. And all the following wars and deaths.

BTW what just happened to the Lifestyles section?

:lol: :lol: :lol: I've never gotten that message maybe you should read it :wink3:

Ha I saw this thread and skipped the second page because I knew it was going to be all flames. Personally, I think the war in Iraq turned out good, even if the original purpose was not met. Saddam should not have been in power, the US got him out of power, weapons of mass destruction or not, some good came out of it. If you ask me, Saddam was a "weapon of mass destruction". So in a sense yes there were, now there aren't, two birds with one stone if you throw in the oil. I think the majority of people against Bush live in America :lol: . ITS GETTING KIND OF LOUD IN HERE! CAN WE PLEASE KEEP THE REST OF THE THREAD AT A DULL ROAR?! inside voices. thank you :nice:

now it does... wait what is this thread about?