Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Liberator on March 02, 2004, 09:16:29 pm
-
A look at the agenda John Kerry truly subscribes to, courtesy of his voting record. (http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm)
-
Is that suppossed to be a negative or positive comment?
-
OMG! Those are so funny. "Flag burning is displeasing, but its free expression"
What kind of an idiot is Kerry? It seems all the cadidates want to do is critisize Bush for all the things he has done. Which candidate has said every campaign speech, at least 8 things they plan to do with the United States if they are elected? How about 5? 3? You list them to me, all Dean, Kerry, the whole 9 yards, and I will start to think these guys actually have a plan.
Other then that, I would vote for George Bush next term. People ***** about coming into Iraq too early, but Hatti too late. Kerry's words. But, all this bull**** about George Bush's military record is just driving me insane. WHO CARES?! And Dean saying "I couldnt serve in Vietnam because of George Bush" is outright bull****. I should slap some of these guys.
:yes: :yes: Thumbs up for George Bush :yes: :yes:
-
this is going to get fugly
fast
-
then let people come and rant and rave about how George Bush sucks and Dean is better. I've heard them all. Its all anyone knows how to do anymore because everyone thinks that George Bush is a looser and they track EVERYTHING that he does and make sure he screws up and looks for mistakes every which way. Jesus, why cant people grow up already.
-
Y'know, until now i had no major preference in who won this upcoming election, so long as it wasn;t bush. But a quick skim through that list of votes does actually make me like Kerry (as in, if I was a voter in the Us I'd vote for 'im), cos there's a lot of sensible stuff there.
-
Tin Can: Their campaign plans are no secret, you know. Just because the newspapers want to make Bush the only issue doesn't mean that's all anybody cares about. While it's true that Dean ran primarily on a platform of reversing all the ****ups Bush has made while in office (four years of work there at minimum anyway), they all had pretty explicit election plans. Kerry's isn't anything spectacular, he's basically just promising everything the Dems' standard centrist-right general platform dictates.
Kerry's a turd in general, though. He voted in the Patriot Act, took money from some of the less moral corporations recently (last I checked, ****in' news services are all requiring ****in' passwords these days and like hell I'm going to register at them all), and generally has a record of not really standing up for jack **** and being barely distinguishable as Democrat, Republican, or anything else. He panders to the politics of people who don't give a **** about politics, and should he come into office he'll almost certainly be a cypher. I guess it's too much to ask for to nominate a candidate who actually believes in something these days, but even among that mass of politicians that don't you couldn't get more whitebread than Kerry.
-
Stryke's words coming out of my mouth.
And I used to be such a nice guy.
-
When are you people gonna learn?
Democracy only ever means you get the lesser of two evils. And I'd rather have Kerry screwing with the abortion rights of US women than Bush screwing with the Korean military.
-
Err.. panderous or not, he appeals a lot more to me (minus the Patriot Act bit) than anyone else has so far.
EDIT: And he sort of contradicts himself a bit on Iraq...
-
Actually, allowing the PATRIOT Act through with a sunset clause was better than flat-out killing it.
If you let it through, you can cripple any future implimentations by citing how ****ty it did in its first 3 (?) years of operation, as it inevitably would.
It's like if you killed Hitler in 1930. No-one would ever know why he was killed and no lessons woulda been learned during WW2, like "Nuking people is bad".
-
So... whos side is Stryke on?
-
Depends. Which side are you on?
-
an0n: Actually, I'm not so sure about that... Generally speaking, people want to become President for a reason. Even Bush went into office with some explicit goals in mind. Granted, his goals involved milking the American populace for as much as possible, burying a few bodies, and securing an extremist powerbase that is now and will continue to erode the democratic process in the country for years, but at least we know why he went in. Kerry, on the other hand, has no outstanding issues, no explicit goal, no significant political ties, and no evidence of any interests that'd merit a sense that he needed to be President. So we're left with either a guy who's done a very good job of hiding his political agenda, or a man who wants to be President simply because he thinks he should be. In other words, a powermonger. And that, especially after all the stress the American political system has gone under in the past four years, would be death.
EDIT: Yeah, this is in reference to a couple posts up. Went to get a bite halfway through typing.
-
you know I was leaning twards Bush just becase I like us useing our military, but now I'm sort of likeing Kerry, he is slightlyly further to the left than I would like, but not too far
-
Kerry is not my candidate. I'm more an Edwards guy.
So I did a little agree/disagree score card going down that list, just to see what the spread would be. It turns out that I agree with Kerry six times more often than I disagree with him. Not bad at all. By my thinking, that makes him excellent presidential material.
I think I should look up what they have on Bush and see how that comes out. Thanks for the site, Liberator.
-
It doesn't make anybody even a little worried that he's so totally unobjectionable from every political angle, does it.
-
most of the Bush quotes are from 2000 or before. some stances may have changed depending on the many events that have occured since then
-
Originally posted by Liberator
A look at the agenda John Kerry truly subscribes to, courtesy of his voting record. (http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm)
Read it. So what's the hidden evil agenda there? Other then maintaining a secular state :lol:
-
He's a "keep things running" kinda guy.
He won't rape the economy to line the pockets of his corporate masters ( :doubt: ), but he won't be instituting state-funded healthcare either.
He'll make things nice and workable, if not a little unremarkable.
-
So, in other words, a fence sitter.
And why, oh God, why do you like the US using its military? The way you said it, sounds like you like it "just cause". Why would you possibly like the use of military force in and of itself?
Its like those people who go to monster car shows so they can see stuff get crushed and shout Hell Yeah!
-
As opposed to those who go to monster car shows for the refined discussion of the relative virtues of the cheeses of southern France.
Watching stuff 'splode is fun. Getting drafted is not, though, nor is being blown up or watching other people get blown up, unless they annoyed me personally at some point in the past.
-
You know, everything "The Left" accuses Bush and "The Right" of doing is actually mostly dead opposite of what they actually intend.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
It doesn't make anybody even a little worried that he's so totally unobjectionable from every political angle, does it.
You've had lukewarm ****s running the country on and off since its conception. So whats one more drop in the lake.
But. yeah, it does worry me that even after having someone like Bush, Amercia still doesn't have the balls to actually have an opinion. Its some sort of soldier complex, where you've got the entire nation running on the belief that dissent is wrong, that being critical of government policy is a sin.
-
I would still have to go for Bush. Me and my Socialist buddy from Baharain (A middle eastern country) have heated discussions over politics, mainly because im mostly conservative and hes mostly a liberal/socialist. Although we both have the same family standpoints:
Gay Marrages are wrong
Family is an important social structure in america
Family values are decreasing as of late
It is now all about "FREEDOM" and "FEELINGS" and no longer morals
-
Most of the lukewarm ****s actually had an issue, though. They had at least one notable thing they promised to do while in office, and in most cases carried through on that. Kerry's running on a plank of "being there". I doubt nine in ten people could distinguish him from any of the other candidates except by the vague concept that he's supposed to be the "electable" one.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Most of the lukewarm ****s actually had an issue, though. They had at least one notable thing they promised to do while in office, and in most cases carried through on that. Kerry's running on a plank of "being there". I doubt nine in ten people could distinguish him from any of the other candidates except by the vague concept that he's supposed to be the "electable" one.
Too true... :sigh: :sigh:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You know, everything "The Left" accuses Bush and "The Right" of doing is actually mostly dead opposite of what they actually intend.
So you mean, that "The Left" accuses Bush of being a man who strives for tolerance of minorities in the United States among other things? :)
-
Ooh! Ooh! Bush is really a peace-loving president!
It's just, y'know, sometimes that ***** planet gives him lip and he gets mad, y'know? He doesn't mean it, he loves the Iraqis very much, and if the rest of the world'd just learn its place this sorta thing wouldn't happen so much...:lol:
-
Just finished up going throught the Bush one. This is an interesting result--I agreed with Bush far more than I expected. I disagreed with Bush twiceas often as I agreed with him though.
So, the results are:
Kerry: 6 to 1 FOR
Bush: 2 to 1 AGAINST
Now, as for Kerry. I don't see him as 'lukewarm'. He's definately 'UN-objectionable from every possible angle'. I agree with the guy on a hell of a lot of stuff.
[edit]
Thanks for pointing out my error, Stryke.
[/edit]
-
Yeah, you might wanna read the post again. Dem prefixes, man, out to kill us all...
-
My apologies, Stryke. I did misread.
-
There's also the bonus that he's not a coke-addict, former stripper or oil-tycoon, which puts him streets ahead of Bush.
-
Originally posted by an0n
There's also the bonus that he's ... oil-tycoon, which puts him streets ahead of Bush.
You left off 'deserter'.
And for the record, Bush is a FAILED oil-tycoon. Every oil company he had controlling interest in tanked. The only ones he was involved with that managed to succeed, he neither started, nor controlled.
-
I don't see too many people on the Right stirring up racial dissent, only the so-called black leaders such as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson of the Monochrome Coalition, stirring racial dissent. The last true leader the Civil Rights movement had was MLK Jr. Al and Jesse are pale, anorexic imitations.
Umm, throwing around false accusations like Desertion is bordering on slanderous, especially since it's already been dis-proved. The Left don't really have any substitive issues, so they make their enemies look as bad as possible because if the public finds out their true position, they are out.
-
Actually, I think if you go look at the records, the charge of desertion has NOT been disproved. Bush has yet to provide any documentation or a credible witness (or any witness) that proves he performed any of the duties he says he did during the time in question. The best he's been able to come up with is that he attended a dental appointment.
Now, I don't know about Mr. Bush, but I've got my entire service record from my time in the military. You can look through it and tell where I was, and what I was doing, and who I worked for for my entire time in service. Furthermore, there's documentation for every single ribbon, medal, commendation, letter of appreciation, leave time, promotion, special request, counselling, etc in there. Complete with dates, and supporting documentation. Furthermore, my military medical record documents every medical and dental appointment, emergency room visit and medical test performed on my during the period.
In short: a military service record, for even a short period of service is several inches thick of documentation. Bush has not pulled out even ONE PAGE from his service record that shows he showed up for DUTY. A dental appointment does not count as DUTY.
For the record:
- slander:
- words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
For my words to be slander, they would have to be provably false. I challenge Mr. Bush to prove my words false.
The Left don't really have any substitive issues, so they make their enemies look as bad as possible because if the public finds out their true position, they are out.
As someone who voluntarily served this country faithfully and honorably in a war zone, Liberator, this IS a substantive issue. Desertion and/or dereliction of duty is neither honorably, nor faithful and should not go unpunished.
-
not only do they have to be false, but do't you also hae to know they are false at the time you say them?
"Every oil company he had controlling interest in tanked."
and you call him a capitalist!
you can stop looking, there is no point here.
-
Can we call him a 'failed capitalist' then?
-
Some call him a deserter, others call him an financial cretin, but we just call him George.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, I think if you go look at the records, the charge of desertion has NOT been disproved. Bush has yet to provide any documentation or a credible witness (or any witness) that proves he performed any of the duties he says he did during the time in question. The best he's been able to come up with is that he attended a dental appointment.
Didn't the dentist say he could remember if he'd treated bush or not anyways?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0%2C1282%2C-3740995%2C00.html
That said, would you really want George Bush sitting directly behind the controls of a multi-million dollar weapon?
-
Holy **** guys, who give a flying f*** about his military records? You know, a fair majority of our presidents were never military men at all, and wheather he did his duties in the National Guard or not, I couldnt give heads or tails if he didnt.
The war in Iraq was something Kerry approved of. He had it spoken all over the place. Now that all the democrats think it sucks, and we have now finally DONE something, like caught this bastard, now he says "Oh, wait! It was a horrible idea! We shouldnt do it!"
When these candidates present themselves accordingly and start coming up with a GAME PLAN PEOPLE!!! :hopping:
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Holy **** guys, who give a flying f*** about his military records? You know, a fair majority of our presidents were never military men at all, and wheather he did his duties in the National Guard or not, I couldnt give heads or tails if he didnt.
question of trust & honour, innit? Is a man who shirked military duty through family connections fit to lead a country into war?
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
The war in Iraq was something Kerry approved of. He had it spoken all over the place. Now that all the democrats think it sucks, and we have now finally DONE something, like caught this bastard, now he says "Oh, wait! It was a horrible idea! We shouldnt do it!"
When these candidates present themselves accordingly and start coming up with a GAME PLAN PEOPLE!!! :hopping: [/B]
From what i have read, Kerry's objections were all centered around just how ****ed up the situation in Iraq has become, rather than the reasons for removing Saddam.
Besides which, if the bloke decided and admits he made a mistake, is that actually a bad thing?
Now, granted - i don;t want to sound like I'm waxing lyrical about Kerry because I don't know much about him or Us politics beyond the odd news story on the beeb / itv / sky and that link above, but given the dmaage Bush has done already, I'd say better the devil you don't.
-
Damage? Holy hell. We just freed an opressed people and now everyone calls that damage? When is the last time the news has reported anything GOOD about the war? Thats because they dont want anything to be said that might make it look like a good thing. A soldier came back from the war and said that the news is dead wrong and I believe him. He was there, he did all of this, and he comes back to a bunch of ass holes who dare to say the military is dishonorable.
And if everyone thinks that we are making it worse, then screw you.
-
Amen
-
Thank you.
-
Although I do agree that the media is overplaying the small collateral damage and the small ammout of remaining resistance
most iraqis are rather happy from what I've heard from the Iraqi LUG via Slashdot
This still doesn't justify bush lying to us
===================
liberator has officially descended into mindless partisan bickering
he acts like most of those position kerry tooks are BAD - most of them were upholding equal rights and a secular state - IE UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION
Libby, give it up dude- you don't know your arse from a hole in the ground when it comes to politics, science, debate and the world in general
-
Dems: +50 Bil.
Reps: -500 Bil.
------------------
What would you vote?
=================
Dems: Were about to make new spacebus
Reps: Left it to fry and burn
================
Kerry: Rich wife
Bush: Rich dad, oil-friends, gun-friends, etc. (everybody's rich)
================
Mil. service
Kerry: Nam
Bush: Dads' backyard
================
Kerry: War on terror (Started by Bush)
Bush: War on Iraq (To be ended by Kerry)
==================
Kerry: More taxes for the rich
Bush: Less taxes for the rich
==================
Kerry: Has worked for a living
Bush: Hasn't earned a dime in his life (again rich friends)
==================
Kerry: Will be re-elected (like Clinton)
Bush: Won't (like dad)
==================
Kerry: Been there, done that, got the marks and scars to prove it
Bush: Likes minorities, lets 'em fight wars for him, got the photos to prove it.
==================
Kerry: "No comment" when Bush's "war record" came out.
Bush: "No comment" when some republicans tried to smear Kerry by putting him together with Hanoi Jane in a fake photo op.
==================
Kerry: WILL be elected by popular vote
Bush: WILL lose the popular vote (again) AND the elections (that's a first)
==================
---------> Who's gonna help 'em both win the election?
Kerry : Rich wife
Bush : Naughty brother (Florida was just the beginning)
==================
US: President BUSH
US eurotrash: WTF!
===================
And to conclude, without really mentioning the butterfly vote (effect), the dirty negative campaigns, the money on top of money and other things going for Bush, well,
He helped destroy US economy (any dumb f*ck knows that to win a war you RAISE taxes, not lower them or you WILL run down the economy, but then this is the leader of the free world, isn't it.)
I am a Greek, a European, and retain the right to think. Bush was elected on money, favored big money, and KO'd the US economy.
Clinton was smeared because of screwing a rather ugly girl.
What should happen to Bush for destroying the US economy?
Job loss, unemployment skyrockets, makebelieve growth, EMRON.
On any occasion, I have spent hours thinking how could someonel like him be elected. It wouldn't happen here.
LET THE GAMES BEGIN.
-
Nothing's so certain. Remember that bit about the hint of part of a booby in the Super Bowl? Remember how many days that was headline news? Care to venture an estimate as to how many soldiers died in Iraq meriting barely a 20th-page mention in passing while the nation was gripped in the crisis of a "wardrobe malfunction"?
Clinton's blowjob far, far outpaced Bush's rape of the country in terms of national interest. Spread the rumor that he was seen ogling some celebrity, he's out- otherwise, anybody's guess.
'Sides, there's always that lovely Diebold wonderfullness to contend with. Are they even up to 50% accurate, yet? Have they at least managed not to get implicated in any shady political dealings with the Bush camp lately? Honestly, those assholes weren't even bothering to pretend last I heard.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Holy **** guys, who give a flying f*** about his military records? You know, a fair majority of our presidents were never military men at all, and wheather he did his duties in the National Guard or not, I couldnt give heads or tails if he didnt.
Originally posted by mikhael
As someone who voluntarily served this country faithfully and honorably in a war zone, Liberator, this IS a substantive issue. Desertion and/or dereliction of duty is neither honorably, nor faithful and should not go unpunished.
Let's examine the Texas Air National Guard, its values and the ramifications of desertion of thereof:
First, the states values of the Texas Air National Guard
- Service -- if he wasn't doing his guard duty, he's failed on this one
- Courage -- I'll grant him this one. It take some serious courage to stand up and lie in the face of the public record.
- Honesty -- If you swear a solemn oath to do your duty and don't, isn't that dishonest? Bearing false witness is a sin in his faith. Abrogating a sworn oath is the same.
- Integrity -- What kind of integrity can the man have? He deserted.
- Respect -- not doing his duty shows the world how much he respects the Guard and the men and women who serve(d) in it faithfully.
- Loyalty -- desertion of your post, especially during time of war is anything but 'loyal'
Let's see now... where next? How about the Oath of Enlistment for the Texas Guard? Its got a great quote:
I, [insert name], do solemnly swear that I will bear truth faith and allegiance to the State of Texas and to the United States of America; that I will serve them honestly and faithfully ...
Does desertion during time of war count as serving 'honestly and faithfully'?
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Damage? Holy hell. We just freed an opressed people and now everyone calls that damage? When is the last time the news has reported anything GOOD about the war? Thats because they dont want anything to be said that might make it look like a good thing. A soldier came back from the war and said that the news is dead wrong and I believe him. He was there, he did all of this, and he comes back to a bunch of ass holes who dare to say the military is dishonorable.
And if everyone thinks that we are making it worse, then screw you.
Out of curiosity, when is the last time you were in the Middle East in the military? The military is doing what they were ordered to do. You could say that they're serving 'honestly and faithfully'. However, to characterize the military as 'dishonorable' is indeed, dead wrong.
The dishonorable person is the man that ordered them into Iraq in the first place on a platform of lies and half-truths. The Bush administration has continuously cast and recast this war to try to keep one step ahead of the critics. First it was about disarmament, but no weapons were found. Then it was about the war on terror, but no links to Al-queda have been found. Then it finally, after we had already dropped explosive devices innocent civilians, it became a war to liberate the people of Iraq. This progression is documented: the President's words are part of the public record. The speeches he made are there to read.
Now, let's talk about 'opressed people'. Were the people of Iraq opressed? Absolutely! Have they been freed of the tyrrany of Hussein? Of course.
Are they free and no longer oppressed? Of course not. Instead of Hussein's boot on their throats, its ours. The people of Iraq want to vote for their form of government, and yet the Bush administration is afraid to let them do it because the majority wants theocracy. Imagine that: they want a union between church and state and the Bush administration says no! Instead, the administration is trying to force a democracy down their throats. How is denying the will and wishes of the people anything but oppression?
We may not be making it worse, but we certainly are not making it better.
-
the thing about Diebold, they could at least cheat realisticly, I mean -5000 votes kinda jumps out at ya
you know the UN actualy agrees with the "Iraq is not ready for a vote" thing
-
Isn't that a bit hypocritical though, Bob?
I personally don't care what sort of government they end up with. I'm glad that Hussein is gone. I'm happy about my unemployment check, too. I do wish I didn't have to get it by being unemployed.
The ends do not justify the means. The man lied, and he should get his peepee slapped for sending men to die for his own political aggrandizement. (hey, didn't the the Right say that Clinton went into Kosovo for his own political ends? Why is it somehow different when Bush does the same thing?)
-
what you mean me useing the UN to justify the "Iraq isn't quite stable enough to take a vote yet" position, even though I don't give a damn about what the UN says?
well, maybe, I was mostly pointing it out as a sorce that you might consider to be, at the least, a fair body ( :ha: )
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Damage? Holy hell. We just freed an opressed people and now everyone calls that damage?
http://iraqbodycount.net
-
I wasn't calling you a hypocrite, Bob. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
I was saying that bombing a country so you can bring them democracy, then not letting them vote democratically is hypocritical.
I dunno about that site, Rictor. Its slanted rather heavily. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just saying that I'd consider anything I read there suspect. (much like I consider anything on the Democrat or Republican websites to be suspect)
-
yes it is somewhat hypocritical if looked at in such simple terms, but if we alow an election were there could be people with guns standing over anyone who votes, I don't think that would be apropriate.
"hey, didn't the the Right say that Clinton went into Kosovo for his own political ends? Why is it somehow different when Bush does the same thing?"
it isn't. I suported Clinton(braces for Rictor's and Rasor's(if he should show up) slapping), even though I figured he was doing it as a distraction, I agreed that something had to be done, even if the only reason we were doing it was becase Clinton wanted a 'HEY! look at that over there!'.
I don't care why Bush wanted to take out Sadam I just wanted him gone. for the most part I think Iraq is a better place for it's people, and may be a vastly better place in the not to distant future. ends do justify means if you take into acount all ends.
-
Tin, I do give a Flying f*** about Bush's military record for one reason. He was expected to perform a duty, whether it was a pleasant one or not. If nobody can prove that Bush was loyal to his country then, who is to say he is being so now?
I don't know any of the other runners, so I can't comment on the race for the Whitehouse personally, if it's the same as the UK, it's same crap, different background anyway. But I think the safest thing for about the entire world is for Bush to go as soon as possible, basing a society on what seems to be defined here as 'Morals' is utterly terrifying, simply because what is being talked about here is not Morals.
The dictionary is pretty blank regarding Morals, and rightly so, because different people have different Morals, so what is being said here is not 'Let's make a society based on the peoples Morals', it's 'Let's make a society based on my petty discriminations and irrational fear of the unknown, and what my mate told me'.
Most countries already have one of those.
Morals is, at a base level, knowing what is 'right'. If you asked a Gay person whether they think that their affection for their partner is 'right' what do you think they would say? If you asked a Liberal whether he thinks homosexual marraige is 'right' what do you think he would say?
So who here has the 'Right' to define Moral and Immoral? I don't see any deities here, except possibly the SCP guys, and I personally would severly doubt a book which has mutated so much that most Churches need to tell you which version they are making a reading from.
-
There's no guarantee that Iraq will be a better place now. It certainly hasn't gotten better yet (if anything, it's a good deal worse, particularly in terms of crime and daily fatalities), and everyone seems to be awful quick to forget what happened only recently in Afghanistan.
Flipside: I'm considered the Antichrist equivalent of a small church, does that count as deityhood? If so, you're all horrible people and going to hell. Bwahaha.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Damage? Holy hell. We just freed an opressed people and now everyone calls that damage? When is the last time the news has reported anything GOOD about the war? Thats because they dont want anything to be said that might make it look like a good thing. A soldier came back from the war and said that the news is dead wrong and I believe him. He was there, he did all of this, and he comes back to a bunch of ass holes who dare to say the military is dishonorable.
And if everyone thinks that we are making it worse, then screw you.
You haven;t freed anyone yet - you / we've* replaced a tyrant with anarchy and a proto-civil war. I would never suggest the military is dishonourable - they're just doing their job.
and anyways, with damage I was referring to;
- withdrawal from nuclear non-profileration treaties
- the plan to develop the anit missile shield - using a forward radar base on a USAF base in Britain, but providing us with no actual defense to counteract the fact w'e'd become a prime target
- withdrawal from a pledge to abolish use of landmines by 2006(1)
- illegal steel import tariffs IIRC
- withdrawal from the Kyoto treaty
- the decisions to allow oild drilling in Alaska, in what IIRC is a protected reserve
- the removal of state secularity by introducing various laws (especially regarding the sanctity of marriage)
- illegal tax breaks for large corporations (2)
- launching unjustifiable attacks on european countries like France and Germany for daring to speak their mind and disagree
- requesting that the UK spy on UN delegates before crucial votes RE Iraq(3)
- offering financial support to a military dictatorship (4) in exchange for votes at the above vote (and not even mentioning Musharraf)
- Illegally holding prisoners without trial or legal recourse in Cuba, something which is contrary to the rule of law and due process vital for any civillized nation
- Tax breaks. For the super-rich only.
And this is just a few thing is remeber coming across the pond.....and i've berely mentioned the dirty tricks used to force through the war with Iraq, or the clinical ****up in trying to force the military to use an even smaller force than the one they went in with.
(1) To be fair, they have pledged to switch to using smart mines 'safe' after a period of about 3months. But what tech is 100% reliable?
(2) Declared by the WTO as illegal state support (to the like of Microsoft, Boeing, etc). The EU is beginning to phase in retaliatory sanctions which are capable of collapsing the US economy and - as a consequence - the European one. There have also been numerous protectionist polocies, like placing tarriffs on Scotttish cashmere over something to do with banana imports
(3) Allegedly - based on a leaked memo. The leaker was charged under the Official Secrets Act, but the charges were dropped as unsupportable.
(4) Gambia, IIRC. I've been unable to find the exact nation, but I remeber the hypocracy of this well
Y'know, up till 4/5 years agoi had no real interest in US politics. Why do you think i would suddenly develop a deep mistrust of Bush for the hell of it - especially when I've not even cared about previous presidents' actions? i mean, why should I be so worried about another world leader? doesn;t that kind of indicate something must be seriously wrong?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I dunno about that site, Rictor. Its slanted rather heavily. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just saying that I'd consider anything I read there suspect. (much like I consider anything on the Democrat or Republican websites to be suspect)
If you actually checked the site you see all casualties reported on it came from from at least two reputable sources, mostly western news reports. Dont see how you could possibly see it as slanted. Yeah its done by anti war people but the pro war people dont give a flying f**k how many Iraqis died and those who didnt care about the war obviously arent going to care enough to start counting the dead.
-
I always wondered about the mine thing, actually. Given that the US is a rich, high-tech country, wouldn't it be pretty easy to have mines operate in inert mode as a default, and switch on, say, when special sensors detected somebody entering roughly the middle of the minefield? Make the things simultaneously infinitely more lethal to hostile combatants and pretty much completely safe after the conflict's end.
'S the way I'd design 'em, at least. Electrical switch, parallel circuit, activate when the attacking force was deep enough in that moving in any direction at all would be lethal, maybe given time and money even some crude magnetic/radiation IFF tab so that friendlies could go across and shoot the hell out of those hostiles smart enough to stay put when the first cars or whatever start blowing up.
-
mik: Check here (http://iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm) to see case by case statistics including the Source of the info. Its always two or more reliable news services.
Also, the reported Minimum and reported Maximum are usually the same, so its not like they're always taking the high numbers. And even in such cases when the reports differ on the number of dead, you have the handy High/Low counter. Even by conservative estimates, its still neatly 10,000 people.
-
Rictor, I'm not going to argue the numbers. They might be right. I'm just saying the site is slanted (I may even agree with the slant).
-
I'm also not interested in getting into an arguement, at least not with you. But I'de just like to know why you think the site is slanted. They have quite strict criteria for what constitutes a credible source. The way I see it, they're only doing what the military should have done anyway, so its not like they have some spooky anti-American agenda.
I figure someone is bound to bring it into question sooner or later, so might as well try to explain it now.
-
i think there needs to be a new variant of Godwin's law - for the term "anti-American agenda"
-
How would you define that Kaz?
-
do you know what godwin's law is
-
Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet]
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
Hehe. I'd never heard of that one....
-
From the Godwin's Law FAQ (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/):
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
A reformulation:As a HardLight discussion of current political events grows longer, the probability of someone being accused of having an 'anti-American agenda' approaches one.
-
'Scuse my ignorance, but what is a 'non-citizen liberal'?
-
Someone who is not currently a citizen of the United States and has a Liberal set of values.
-
by liberator's definition of "liberal' that's just about the entire planet
-
What about Australia's 'Liberals'? So far as I can tell, Australian 'Liberals' are actually conservative and 'Labor' is liberal. So are they liberal or conservative? :D
-
It's normally kind of dodgy to classify the nature of political parties by name, tho.......
-
I know. It was a joke, Aldo. ;)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
by liberator's definition of "liberal' that's just about the entire planet
As well as a significant portion of inanimate objects and roughly 2/3 of the animal kingdom.
You know, though I'm not a fan, I have nothing much against real conservatives. They stand for fiscal responsibility, personal accountability and limited government interference. The thing is, that today's Right has very little to do with conservativism.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I know. It was a joke, Aldo. ;)
D'oh! 3 1/2 hours of sleep last night make Aldo extra dumb.
And talk in the 3rd person, apparently.
-
For all you foggies who say the economy sucks, I have 1 thing to say to you:
Get some facts. The economy is actually picking up from Clinton's mess.
-
Um, no. The economy was doing extremely well under Clinton.
In fact, I recall there were similar spurious claims made when the economy tanked under the first Bush, under Reagan... none of them with any actual factual or even credible theoretical basis, no support or reason to exist at all except that if those who claimed it believed hard enough they wouldn't have to admit that they were totally wrong about how the economy works.
-
Another interesting thing: the number of current Iraq Civilian Body Count has not been tallied OR estimated. They found mass graves somewhere, so, I'm wondering if they are adding that to the list. But anyway, here we go. I will probably be critisized, slapped, booted in the ass and then spit on, but I'm saying it anyway because you can all go to hell:
Sure, things in Iraq have not gotten any worse, but they have gotten BETTER then before. Numbero Uno - Cinco
1) Children now go to schools, since the Iraqi regime did not educate their people nor did they have any regard for healthcare or education.
2) They now have politions, the Governing Council of Iraq, which is trying to draw up a constitution. Although I am sure a bunch of you will say "OMG! NO THEY DONT JEEZ YOU ARE SO WRONG!!!11!!1!1!"
3) Think about it: Being pressured by armed Iraqi gunment without a conciounse, while Sadaam's son goes in and rapes your wife. I bet that sounds like something you would love to stay up and worry about all night.
4) If, as all of you believe, 10,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in this war, think about how many MORE would die under the influence of Sadaam's power?
5) Bush did not lie about the weapons of mass destruction. He was given information by the CIA that THEY thought he had weapons of mass destruction, and he acted on the information and told everyone what HE thought was correct. If HE thought they had WMD, and the CIA thought they had WMD, and even SADAAM though he had WMP (I mean, he used chemical weapons on his own people. Come on!)
6) The people want the US to liberate them, because now instead of "major attacks" on convoys, they have major attacks on civilians, officials, and people who are just cooperating with the US. All this complete bull**** that they dont want us is wrong, and you know it.
-
I was fairly sure there was at least one college there. Didn't they mention a firefight at one?
But anyway, from most views, there wasn't much of a case for an actual invasion short of Bush's policy of preemptive strikes. And in my opinion, that policy sets a dangerous precedent.
Also, we should be out of there by now. Probably would have been if there was an actual post-invasion plan in place. IIRC, the MPs weren't sent in for months, and even though I have great respect for the US Military, they aren't the specialists you need to police a country in anarchy.
-
[q]Children now go to schools, since the Iraqi regime did not educate their people nor did they have any regard for healthcare or education.[/q]
Until sanctions, Iraq had very effective healthcare and education. It was US and UK led blocks on aid that killed half a million Iraqi children. The Clinton administration called that an acceptable price to pay for keeping Saddam supposedly in check.
[q]Bush did not lie about the weapons of mass destruction. He was given information by the CIA that THEY thought he had weapons of mass destruction, and he acted on the information and told everyone what HE thought was correct.[/q]
Yes but he won't admit that they may have been wrong.
[q]The people want the US to liberate them[/q]
Now I'm worried.
Do you really think these people want thier country torn apart and divided up between America's most powerful corporations? Do you think they want to become the next indonesia? The Iraqi people aren't ignorant masses they're educated people like you and I and a certain percentage will know world history (a lot better than you by the looks of it).
The really, really, sick part of all this is I don't give a damn - as long as this war protected my country's interests then it was justifiable. Unfortunately, I have this horrible feeling it gave us more problems.
EDIT: Typo
-
Phillipines, anyone?
Note: This is a reference to what seems to be the situation in US history closest to Iraq, prompted by vyper's comment.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
For all you foggies who say the economy sucks, I have 1 thing to say to you:
Get some facts. The economy is actually picking up from Clinton's mess.
Your economys f*cked in the long run, heres why:
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex24290.htm
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
1) Children now go to schools, since the Iraqi regime did not educate their people nor did they have any regard for healthcare or education.
Utter bollocks, Iraq was one of the best states in the middle east healthcare and education wise before US and UK enforced sanctions destroyed the place.
2) They now have politions, the Governing Council of Iraq, which is trying to draw up a constitution. Although I am sure a bunch of you will say "OMG! NO THEY DONT JEEZ YOU ARE SO WRONG!!!11!!1!1!"
Eh, these politicians were appointed there by the Americans, not the Iraqis. And for the large part they're exiles who havent stepped foot in Iraq in 20 years or more, with little or no links to the actual people.
3) Think about it: Being pressured by armed Iraqi gunment without a conciounse, while Sadaam's son goes in and rapes your wife. I bet that sounds like something you would love to stay up and worry about all night.
Nasty yes, but the vast majority of the 20 million Iraqis didnt have to worry about this sort of thing, it was mainly reserved for those who opposed Saddam.
4) If, as all of you believe, 10,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in this war, think about how many MORE would die under the influence of Sadaam's power?
US and UK are responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqis, far more than Saddam killed even counting the deaths from the 10 year Iran-Iraq war. Not ideal candidates for liberating the place.
5) Bush did not lie about the weapons of mass destruction. He was given information by the CIA that THEY thought he had weapons of mass destruction, and he acted on the information and told everyone what HE thought was correct. If HE thought they had WMD, and the CIA thought they had WMD, and even SADAAM though he had WMP (I mean, he used chemical weapons on his own people. Come on!)
I'm willing to bet you have absolutly no knowledge of when, where or why Saddams supposed to have gassed his own people. Theres a few facts regarding Saddams gassing of his own people that dont get talked about much these days: The town in question had just been captured by the Iranians and their Kurdish allies, in the ensuing battle both sides used chemical weapons and it has never been firmly established who actually gassed the town. The pentagon originally blamed the Iranians, but somewhere along the line this was reversed, probably around the time Saddam stopped being the US's biggest ally in the region. But you saw it on fox and thats good enough for you.
6) The people want the US to liberate them, because now instead of "major attacks" on convoys, they have major attacks on civilians, officials, and people who are just cooperating with the US. All this complete bull**** that they dont want us is wrong, and you know it.
Police and members of the puppet government are easier targets than the US troops, which is probably why attacks on them are more successful. And what in gods name makes you think that the people of a country are going to welcome the country thats been bombing them on and off and starving them for over a decade with open arms? They wanted Saddam out, now they want the US out.
-
hey Tin Can - point 5 is invalid in that he already knew the CIA report was wrong - they had already told him they made a boo boo
-
tin can:
1) Iraq actualy had one of the greatest education systems in the middle east, they have (or had) a literacy rate better than (or at least damn close) our own. and one of the best things, women were educated the same as men.
unfortunately this came with the "wife getting raped while you watched" cost.
2) you say polititions like there a good thing :)
the people who talk about the 'US' sanctions, seem to be forgeting that it was the UN that implemented them, and also that was the alternatave to war, wich I have gotten the impression that you were aganst. you can't have both sides, ether the sanctions (that killed half a million babies) were great and the war was horable, or the war (killing 10,000 civilians) was great and the sanctions were horable (I take the second view, if we would have finished the job 12 years ago those 500,000 babies would not have died, but no, war bad, economic preasure good)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
(I take the second view, if we would have finished the job 12 years ago those 500,000 babies would not have died, but no, war bad, economic preasure good)
That's my stance on it too. Bush#1 should have finished the job instead of his son.
-
Did you even bother to look any of this up, Tin Can??
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Another interesting thing: the number of current Iraq Civilian Body Count has not been tallied OR estimated.
The body count HAS been estimated. By the people behind the website Rictor linked up above. Here, I'll do it again: I estimate the civilian casualties at... some positive number. Dude, get some perspective.
1) Children now go to schools, since the Iraqi regime did not educate their people nor did they have any regard for healthcare or education.
They had a great educational system before we crushed the country the first time. The schools continued to operate up until the begining of the current hostilities. As I recall from some news source I saw, the students had to praise Hussein first thing in the morning, every day.
2) They now have politions, the Governing Council of Iraq, which is trying to draw up a constitution. Although I am sure a bunch of you will say "OMG! NO THEY DONT JEEZ YOU ARE SO WRONG!!!11!!1!1!"
They have American appointees who are trying to draft a constitution. They don't have politicians. A politician is "One who holds or seeks a political office." They've got an American government telling them what to do and how to live. How would you like it people you've grown up hating your entire life appointed a bunch of people who didn't represent you and then said 'these are the people that are going to define how you live the rest of your lives'. I think you'd be pretty pissed off.
3) Think about it: Being pressured by armed Iraqi gunment without a conciounse, while Sadaam's son goes in and rapes your wife. I bet that sounds like something you would love to stay up and worry about all night.
You know, I think that's a pretty scary thought. Unfortunately, its nto relevant. If you want to use the 'Saddam was a bad man and he did terrible thing to his people!', explain to me why it is we don't bother to take care of the other bad men who do bad things to their people? I agree: he was a bad man. I don't agree that it justified doing what we did in the way we did it.
4) If, as all of you believe, 10,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in this war, think about how many MORE would die under the influence of Sadaam's power?
Lots. That's not the issue. The issue is not how the war was prosecuted. Its that the war was prosecuted under false pretenses, in a thoroughly illegitimate (though perhaps not illegal) way.
5) Bush did not lie about the weapons of mass destruction. He was given information by the CIA that THEY thought he had weapons of mass destruction, and he acted on the information and told everyone what HE thought was correct. If HE thought they had WMD, and the CIA thought they had WMD, and even SADAAM though he had WMP (I mean, he used chemical weapons on his own people. Come on!)
Lets get some things straight: first, Bush knew the yellowcake document was a fake before using it. He'd been told by the CIA. The Brits had told the Bush administration it was a fake when the document turned out to be signed by a man who was dead for around a decade. Second: the inspectors found nothing. American inspectors continue to find nothing. No evidence has been found that can be credibly linked to a recent weapons program.
Oh, and those chemical weapons that got used before, the ones Hussein used to gas 'his own people'? Guess who sold them to him? Guess who trained his people how to use them? Guess who fed Iraq intelligence data on Iranian positions so the weapons could be deployed more accurately? That would be us. Us as in U. S. The United States of America. The Reagan Administration, to be precise. Oh, did I mention that this was in direct violation of a chemical weapons treaty we were a signatory to at the time? That's okay though! Hussein was going to sell us oil for cheap! He was our friend, the secular, democratically elected (well, when you're the only person on the ballot...) leader in the Middle East.
6) The people want the US to liberate them, because now instead of "major attacks" on convoys, they have major attacks on civilians, officials, and people who are just cooperating with the US. All this complete bull**** that they dont want us is wrong, and you know it.
Some did. Some didn't. The Bush administration during the run up to the war stated that they expected the Iraqis to revolt when US troops started rolling across the border. Unfortunately, none of these revolts ever showed up. Perhaps they learned from Bush I. He promised to provide support for Iraqi dissident's if they revolted. Unfortunately, he changed his mind after telling them, and before they revolted. With no support forthcoming, they were crushed.
Originally posted by Ace
That's my stance on it too. Bush#1 should have finished the job instead of his son.
He couldn't. His dear, personal, close friends, the Saudis, were pushing Bush to not invade Iraq. Bush Sr, like his son after him, has always bent over for the Saudis.
-
Well that about wraps it up for my arguments for the day. I can't get anything but an opposite response from everyone, but I'm still standing the stance that I was before. Unless any of you know any Iraqi folk who actually lived there and went through all that **** you guys say, and he can come on here to prove it or you can get info from him, the please, be my guest. I have a buddy named "Yousif" who grew up in the neglected part of the world we call the "Middle East" in his happy little country of Baharain (Any of you guys know where that is? Thankfully I do) And he did some scoping around in Iraq at the wrong time.
And since no one wants us to be there then I guess all the paradings and happiness in the streets was just propoganda huh? Yeah. It was all just an act by the Bush Administration who paid thousands of people to act like they cared. That was one of the first things I believe you guys would have said.
Secondly: The Literacry Rate of the United States is 97. The literacry rate in Iraq is 54. Explain to me how its fake when I have a textbook in front of me. Does McDougal Littel ring any bells? Doubt it. I'm sure everyone will consider it false and say I'm an idiot. Very well. Moving on.
When it comes down to the politicions, some are US appointed, some are Iraqi appointed. As for the cops: Almost all are Iraqi cops. How the hell do you come up with about an entire force worth of cops for a major city with ALL of them being "pure, US drafted, born and raised under US guidence and surveilence" people? You cant. They are the people, and as of that they have been put into the police force to protect Iraq from anymore god damn terrorists.
As for the deal with Sadaams sons raping folks: it could happen to anyone. Not just oppressors of Sadaam, but anyone. In fact, I cant remember if it was Ancarlo or Savage who had a ring in on the studio FROM an Iraqi person who has moved to the US, who's wife was raped, his son killed, and he was beaten. And he didnt even know why everyone hated Sadaam. He was just in a region outside of Bagdhad. He didnt know what was happening. This was a phone call from some time ago on my way back from a friends house, I think half a year to a year ago.
Gravy. We have killed Iraqi civilians, and I am not proud to say we have and I regret the loss of innocent lives today. But with Sadaam in power, and really no REAL politics going (No one voted for him, he just said he was in charge and as such stayed that way)
And dont bring Regan into this. He was a great president.
As for the deal with the weapons of mass destruction, I wonder where everyone gets their information. The CIA is obviously stupid, and gave Bush a stupid notice. As for people somehow getting loads of "INSIDE INFORMATION" and flashing a link to a website saying "OMG! THERE IT IS! BAM!" well where did they get their info? How about who they got it from them? I am VERY sure the brits and the cia are going to put ALL their activities on a web site saying "we screwed up"
Great idea dumbass. :rolleyes:
Well, the deed is done, and I am prepared to take more bashing as it comes. I guess I deserve it with the more mature people all hanging around.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Well that about wraps it up for my arguments for the day. I can't get anything but an opposite response from everyone, but I'm still standing the stance that I was before. Unless any of you know any Iraqi folk who actually lived there and went through all that **** you guys say, and he can come on here to prove it or you can get info from him, the please, be my guest. I have a buddy named "Yousif" who grew up in the neglected part of the world we call the "Middle East" in his happy little country of Baharain (Any of you guys know where that is? Thankfully I do) And he did some scoping around in Iraq at the wrong time.
You know, I was in Bahrain once. I was in Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait too. What's your point?
And since no one wants us to be there then I guess all the paradings and happiness in the streets was just propoganda huh? Yeah. It was all just an act by the Bush Administration who paid thousands of people to act like they cared. That was one of the first things I believe you guys would have said.
Way to put words in people's mouths. Some of it likely was propoganda. Some of it was probably genuine. Different people, different opinions, different beliefs as to whether they wanted the US there or not.
Secondly: The Literacry Rate of the United States is 97. The literacry rate in Iraq is 54. Explain to me how its fake when I have a textbook in front of me. Does McDougal Littel ring any bells? Doubt it. I'm sure everyone will consider it false and say I'm an idiot. Very well. Moving on.
You gotta learn: we're not out to get you, Tin Can. We're just responding to you. No one is calling you an idiot, and no one is attacking you. Chill out.
When it comes down to the politicions, some are US appointed, some are Iraqi appointed. As for the cops: Almost all are Iraqi cops. How the hell do you come up with about an entire force worth of cops for a major city with ALL of them being "pure, US drafted, born and raised under US guidence and surveilence" people? You cant. They are the people, and as of that they have been put into the police force to protect Iraq from anymore god damn terrorists.
I'll just point out that there were no bombings in Iraq, until the US showed up. Funny how they didn't have 'terrorists' until we got there.
As for the deal with Sadaams sons raping folks: it could happen to anyone. Not just oppressors of Sadaam, but anyone. In fact, I cant remember if it was Ancarlo or Savage who had a ring in on the studio FROM an Iraqi person who has moved to the US, who's wife was raped, his son killed, and he was beaten. And he didnt even know why everyone hated Sadaam. He was just in a region outside of Bagdhad. He didnt know what was happening. This was a phone call from some time ago on my way back from a friends house, I think half a year to a year ago.
Again, this is irrelevant. We don't invade other countries just because their leaders are bad people who do bad things.
Gravy. We have killed Iraqi civilians, and I am not proud to say we have and I regret the loss of innocent lives today. But with Sadaam in power, and really no REAL politics going (No one voted for him, he just said he was in charge and as such stayed that way)
Actually, there were elections. It was just mandatory to vote for Hussein. So yes, people did vote for him. You can't really say he was elected though.
Funny how they get a 'president' they didn't elect... and we get a president we didn't elect...
And dont bring Regan into this. He was a great president.
Yeah. The truth hurts, doesn't it? That 'Great President' gave a tin pot dictator chemical weapons, the training to use them, and the intelligence data to use them effectively. Go Super President! :D
Just out of curiosity though, on what do you base your opinion of Reagan? He was out of office before you were born. Some of us, like myself, were alive and watching through the entire Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II presidencies. I remember watching Reagan's inauguration on AFRTS when my father was stationed in Germany.
Well, the deed is done, and I am prepared to take more bashing as it comes. I guess I deserve it with the more mature people all hanging around.
Um... whose bashing you? We're disagreeing with you. Its part of the democratic process. This is how it works. Now calm down, take a deep breath and quit lashing out at people who disagree with you.
-
ok, the 'beter than our own' bit was a slight exaduration, I don't know the exact numbers,
it was one full ****load better than anywere else in the reagon, however
-
"Funny how they didn't have 'terrorists' until we got there."
Ansar al-Islam
northern Iraq,
bombed the Kurds,
they were, and still are, terrorist in Iraq
-
And there probably will be until we exterminate the lot of them like the vermin they are, both through military force and subsequent improvments in their societies and bring them up to 21st century standards, as opposed to the pre-7th century that they currentlyt endure.
-
i wouldn't really call Iraq pre-7th century civilization.
-
yeah Afghanastan was pretty messed up, but Iraq is/was a 20th century, metropolaton nation
the middle east is not all just stuck in the dark ages
-
it's really funny seeing christian fundamentalists call islamic fundamentallsts "primatives"
-
:lol:
-
The difference between us, you self-righteous know-it-all, is Christians no longer believe in forcing our religion on others, granted it wasn't always so.
Most Islamic fundamentalists believe that if you do not worship Allah and maintain a very pious life that you deserve nothing more than death.
Socially, they seek to return the world to the way the arabs lived before the 7th century.
-
And this meshes with your demands that gays be treated unequally because your religion says they aren't equal... how?
How about your claims that the separation of church and state was intended to be one-way? What about... ****, basically every other post you've made has exhibited how little you respect any opinions or beliefs not yours, and how quickly you'd foist your twisted personal values on everybody given half a chance.
-
That's different, Faith in the power of Christ to save your soul from eternal damnation away from God is an intensly personal decision, the fact that they practice homosexuality shows that they have made their decision to turn from God already. I believe that they can change their decision and must be allowed to do so, it doesn't mean however that I must sanction their immorality.
BTW, that is what makes Hell so unbearable, it won't be the immense amounts of torture and continuous, unabating physical pain, the fact that God will turn his gaze from you forever is what makes it so horrible. Whether you beleive it or not, you are in God's gaze right now, enveloped in his love, he only awaits your decision.
Just so you know, my beliefs are relatively mainstream, when compared to your's or Kazan's. Your's just seem to be more widespread because your kind have infiltrated both the mass media(television and print) and most of the institutions of higher learning, the latter because the loser professors can't get a job in the Real World.
-
Dammit, man! You just made me wake up a third of the dorm laughing! :lol:
Yeesh... and you... you... with the "that's different because they're not Christian" bit... and the MAJORITY! BWAHAHA!
Right, we need to make sure that post is set down in the forum history for all time. We can never let this thread completely die now. That was just too great.
-
/*copy and pastes into file named "liberator-reasons to ignor"*/
-
**** ignoring him, that's the best show I've seen in weeks. He's like a politically incorrect parody of a faithful Christian, sorta a backwards version of all those great 30s cartoons Disney tries to pretend never happened. You can almost see him waving around a little cartoon bible and screaming "Praise the Lawd... hellfire an' damnation, praise the Lawd!" while running aroundlooking for dem witches been doin' that devil-work book-readin'.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The difference between us, you self-righteous know-it-all, is Christians no longer believe in forcing our religion on others, granted it wasn't always so.
i literally laughed out loud, very loudly, scaring the crap out of my girlfriend
Insults fly!
No longer forcing your religion on others? Ban on Homosexual Marriages, Abstinance Only (Ignorance Only) Sex Education, Creation "Science".... yeah you don't force your religion on others
[sarcasm]and nobody in the high up brass of the military claims that god is directing them to attack the mulsims either[/sarcasm]
Originally posted by Liberator
Most Islamic fundamentalists believe that if you do not worship Allah and maintain a very pious life that you deserve nothing more than death.
That's not much different thatn christians and their "you're going to hell!" constantly - you do atleast have the fact taht you generally restrain from killing right now
Originally posted by Liberator
Socially, they seek to return the world to the way the arabs lived before the 7th century.
Socially you want to return us to the way westerners lived before the third century CE with your ban on homosexual marriages, being taht there were sancitified homosexual marriages in the church in the third century CE
-
Kazan: You're behind. :p
-
/me looks at his behind... huh
:)
-
This can mean only one thing...time for some Men in Hats!!
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20030901.gif)
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20031112.gif)
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20030813.gif)
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20020906.gif)
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20020918.gif)
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20020925.gif)
-
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20021106.gif)
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20021113.gif)
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20031001.gif)
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20031010.gif)
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20031020.gif)
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20031029.gif)
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20031205.gif)
-
:lol:
that's great
/*copy and paste into file Rictor-reasons to value opinion*/
oh I'll float god damn you,
and I almost want to make that buddy christ t-shirt into an avatar, but am too lazy
-
How many Christians have held a gun to your head screaming "REPENT FOUL SINNER"? Fundamentalist Islamists do.
I say it again since you're dense, Belief in the Lord Jesus Christ to intercede in your behalf the final judgement is a personal decision. I can't force you to, but I can make sure you don't forget it.
In the end, the Homosexual Marriage thing isn't about whether they are married or not. Since they can't get public approval for their lifestyle, regardless of how many lawsuits they file, they'll settle for the Government sanctioning it instead.
-
no Islamists have held a gun to my head (personaly)
there was a guy who bombed a whole bunch of abortion clinics, Eric Rudolph
all they want is the right to the same thing you have
-
Hey, this thread is just getting better. But soon we're going to need "Christian science-based evidence that Creationism is OK, evolution theory is BAD", so that we can have fun. :)
-
No one has ever heald a gun to my head, Christian, Muslim or otherwise. And I doubt anyone ever will. I think that goes for most people here.
And Liberator, you said that you can't force people to believe, but I don't understand why you have a problem with gay marriage then. I mean, do you not believe that if you believe in God, you will be saved, otherwise you're damned? So if they do something which you think damns them, why is it your problem. Its their choice, and they alone suffer the consequences.
Evangelism is trying to force people to Christianity. No one will ever make you believe at the end of a gun. When they take the gun away, you'll still believe whatever you want to. Its the same thing with trying to keep people from doing "anti Christian" things, like gays marrying. You can force them not to, by making it illegal, but they will still believe what they want to and be what they want to. Why is their morailty any business of yours.
And unlike previous posts, I'de like you to actually answer me this time. I know the likes of Kazan are a much easier target; you shout something, then he shouts something back and so forth, but perhaps you could try to answer my questions and have an actual debate.
-
I'm not going to defend the actions of mentally-unbalanced people when they claim to be a representative of my religion. If Mr. Rudolph was really a Christian he would not have done what he did. I do agree with the motivation behind the acts though, Abortion is murder of the unborn. If I were to attack and kill someone unable to defend themselves I would be a monster, the infant in a womb is not able to defend itself, so what does that make the "physicians" who perform abortions or the people who support them?
I don't not believe that beings can adapt and that between adaptation and beneficial mutation that a species can change, but like Kaz with, oh, just about anything I say, I just need proof.
To prove evoloution to me you need to show me the skeleton of the missing link or links between me a chimp or a gorilla. Even if we killed them all off, there is still going to be a skeleton.
@Rictor
Evangelism is making people aware that they have the choice and that eventually they must make it.
-
we have them, the thing is in order to give all the missing links is you would have to find all the members of the liniage throughout time, wich is imposable.
I made a better post on this in the other thread, I'll be right back
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
if we find a 'midlle species' you'll just want one that came between it and the next one, i.e. if we have species A and species E, if we find a link between them, species C, you would say that proves nothing, find something that goes between species C and E, we later find species D the link between species C and E, there would still be a gap between D and E, unless we found every member of every generation of the liniage.
this sort of reasoning displays a fundimentaly flawed understanding of evolution, namely the whole 'stages' analogy, evolution generaly does not happen in stages, but rather it is a bit easier for us to understand it if we take crossections every few million years and describe the state of a species(s) as a stage, in reality every generation is the next stage in evolution, there are no jumps larger than that.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
To prove evoloution to me you need to show me the skeleton of the missing link or links between me a chimp or a gorilla. Even if we killed them all off, there is still going to be a skeleton.
Couldn't someone, theoretically, use that same argument for God, where's the proof he exists? And I don't just mean "he created you and the universe" kinda proof that most christians give cause that's not proof to me, not by a long shot.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Evangelism is making people aware that they have the choice and that eventually they must make it.
Come on America, join Evangelical Buddhism!
That's right, Buddhism is a choice! Eventually you must make the choice to either strive for a state of nirvanna or not!
For three easy free will offerings of 9.99, you too can take the first step towards nirvanna! Ascribe to either the fundamentalist teachings of Buddha, or to contemporary worship otherwiese known as the Buddhist religion!
Checks and credit cards accepted.
Originally posted by Liberator
Just so you know, my beliefs are relatively mainstream, when compared to your's or Kazan's. Your's just seem to be more widespread because your kind have infiltrated both the mass media(television and print) and most of the institutions of higher learning, the latter because the loser professors can't get a job in the Real World.
That's right! Evangelical Buddhism is the mainstream belief in America! Don't let the liberal media or colleges tell you it's Christianity, or even Islam! Jesus and even Mohammad are only trying to prevent you from attaining nirvanna!
-
I'm not going to defend the actions of mentally-unbalanced people when they claim to be a representative of my religion.
And you somehow assume that all muslins are... terrorists? :D
THAT is comedy!!
If I were to attack and kill someone unable to defend themselves I would be a monster, the infant in a womb is not able to defend itself, so what does that make the "physicians" who perform abortions or the people who support them?
Next time you try to kill a fly or desinfect something think about this...
To prove evoloution to me you need to show me the skeleton of the missing link or links between me a chimp or a gorilla. Even if we killed them all off, there is still going to be a skeleton.
Last and only time I say this... we didn't evolve from gorillas or chimps, go see a species chart (or whatever it's called in english).
-
But we're apes.
-
On a completely late note: A 'friend' of mine once shot me in the head with an air-gun dart.
Everyone else was running away screaming. I just stood there, got a dart lodged in my skull, then called him a pussy.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the people who talk about the 'US' sanctions, seem to be forgeting that it was the UN that implemented them, and also that was the alternatave to war, wich I have gotten the impression that you were aganst. you can't have both sides, ether the sanctions (that killed half a million babies) were great and the war was horable, or the war (killing 10,000 civilians) was great and the sanctions were horable (I take the second view, if we would have finished the job 12 years ago those 500,000 babies would not have died, but no, war bad, economic preasure good)
US introduced the sanctions in the UN, enforced the sanctions for the UN and vetod any motion to have them lifted or lessened when it was apparent how many innocents were being killed as a result. They were not an alternative to war, they were introduced at the end of the first gulf war as a means of preventing Iraq from rebuilding its army/economy and invading someone else.
"Funny how they didn't have 'terrorists' until we got there."
Ansar al-Islam
northern Iraq,
bombed the Kurds,
they were, and still are, terrorist in Iraq
FYI Ansar were operating in the Kurdish autonomous area, which was not under Iraqi control.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I'm not going to defend the actions of mentally-unbalanced people when they claim to be a representative of my religion.
Yet when a member of another faith does something equally bad you hold that up as an example of the belief of the entire faith.
BTW It took me 5 minutes to stop laughing at Liberator's earlier postings :D Best laugh I've had in a while :D
-
Originally posted by Gank
US introduced the sanctions in the UN, enforced the sanctions for the UN and vetod any motion to have them lifted or lessened when it was apparent how many innocents were being killed as a result. They were not an alternative to war, they were introduced at the end of the first gulf war as a means of preventing Iraq from rebuilding its army/economy and invading someone else.
Firstly, the UN is little more than a rubber-stamp. It's basically France, the UK, the US, China and Russia's ***** so they can say their actions were just and so they can force other countries into helping them.
There are UN sanctions (well, if you can call them that) against both Israel and Palestine, but everyone ignores them because it's not financially or politically beneficial to the US and UK to enforce them.
Secondly, the sanctions weren't to prevent Saddam attacking other countries, they were to stop him attacking US allies.
The US was all ****ing pally with Saddam when he was harrassing Iran, but then he used the biologcial and chemical weapons that the US gave him to gas some Kuwaitees (sp?) and try to reclaim the oil-fields the Kuwaitees stole when they broke from Iraq. Just like how France kept trying for 50+ years to **** Germany up for stealing their land (Franco-German war to just after WW2).
All the sanction were, were a neat little rope to tie the Iraqi's to the ground with while the US went to get more rocks to drop on their heads.
-
libby doesn't know the difference between MACROevolution (ie his missing link reference) and MICROevolution
-
Originally posted by Liberator
@Rictor
Evangelism is making people aware that they have the choice and that eventually they must make it.
and then trying to force them to change that choice until they make one that pleases the Evangelicist.
-
Now we're talking about religion eh? Oh boy. I dont even want to get started because there was about a 28 page topic on AG about religion and the posts were too fast for me to keep up with. So I'm done with that.
-
*Points to the "Religion in the Modern World" and whatever the one on the odd Mel Gibson movie is named threads*
Those are for religious debates. This thread is for nice, violent, hostile debating of politics. Don't mix them. Got it?
-
Alrighty. Well, here are some responses:
Just out of curiosity though, on what do you base your opinion of Reagan? He was out of office before you were born. Some of us, like myself, were alive and watching through the entire Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II presidencies. I remember watching Reagan's inauguration on AFRTS when my father was stationed in Germany.
I happen to do my research unlike a bunch of other mofo's who make assumptions, and I also have parents who lived during his era. Trust me, I'm more educated then I look. He picked up after Jimmie Carter's mess and made the entire country what it should be. Jimmie Carter totaly f**ked the country over, that it looked like America was getting rapped up the ass by its own president. Wasn't cool.
But although his foreign policy might be shady to most of you and it seems if a president does a million good things but screws up on one accord, everyone hates him. Thats also bull****.
You know, I was in Bahrain once. I was in Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait too. What's your point?
I meant recently.
-
Supporting Nicarguan Contras resulting in the deaths of thousands is not what you might call a little **** up. Its a big one.
If the President of the United States makes life for his citizens better, by making the lives of others worse, he hasn't done a good job. He is not a good President. But look, I don't pretend to know much about Reagan, so I'll drop the subject.
-
He couldn't have been the worst president (that's not even a question), the real problem is that he wasn't as good as the conservatives who want him on the dime claim he was. For that matter, no one could be. From what I've read, he had quite a few foreign policy decisions that either should or did cause problems for us afterwards. A small list of examples are giving weapons to Iraq and the Iran Contra affair. I'm sure he did some good for the country, but he was far from what he has been claimed to be.
-
I am going to ask all you kids(and most of you are kids to me, I am nearly 26):
What would you do I his place?
You don't know because your concern primarily with how others peceive you. The trademark of a True Leader is the willingness and ability to put aside public opinion and make the right decision.
That's the thing about The Left, they want to be President because of the personal power it brings, mostly because almost all of them are morally and ethically degenerates, more akin to animals than the ideal representative of humanity that they should be.
-
EAT BABIES!@!!!
-
Originally posted by Liberator
That's the thing about The Left, they want to be President because of the personal power it brings, mostly because almost all of them are morally and ethically degenerates, more akin to animals than the ideal representative of humanity that they should be.
Remember, no flaming the other side of the argument.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
But although his foreign policy might be shady to most of you and it seems if a president does a million good things but screws up on one accord, everyone hates him. Thats also bull****.
It should be pointed out that all your standard economic indicators (GDP, jobs, revenues, etc) were all positive when Reagan took office. Read that again. Reagan inherited a reasonably strong economy. Whilst inflation was high under Carter the economy was growing. Reagan era tax cuts led to a twelve year recession that was only reversed during the first Clinton presidency.
As for Reagan's failures, you left out a few things:
- The Iran-Contra affair
- Honduras
- Lebanon and supporting Bashir Gemayal
- Funding Saddam Hussein
- Funding Manuel Noriega
- Funding Osama Bin-Laden
- Supply side (AKA trickle-down) economics
- Unprecedented unemployment (outside the Great Depression)
- Giving Iraq chemical weapons in spite of the US being a signatory to a chemical weapons ban treaty
- "Star Wars"
- The national deficit. He promised to eliminate it. He tripled it.
- He put Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court
Come on, Tin Can. The guy was a bad president by any measure. He may have been a great MAN, but he was a bad PRESIDENT.
You know what the best thing he ever did was? He double enlisted military pay, correcting a woeful injustice in the compensation that soldiers and sailors recieved.
Some of my favorite Reagan stories and quotes:
First, a Reagan story:Reagan was widely criticized in 1985 for a few incidents in East and West Germany. First, he announced he would not visit a concentration camp in West Germany because there were "very few alive that remember even the war, and certainly none of them who were adults and participating in any way." On April 11, the White House announced that Reagan would be visiting the Bitburg, West Germany military cemetery, to lay a wreath in honor of the Americans and Nazi SS buried there. There are no U.S. soldiers buried in Bitburg. Reagan, in an attempt to defend the incident, claimed that he had done so in response to a letter he received from a teenage girl in Chicago; she promptly surfaced with her letter which had urged him not to do so.
And then some quotes:"What does an actor know about politics?"
He was criticising Screen Actors Guild president Ed Asner for his views on foreign policy. Of course, Reagan was a successful actor before he became a politician.
"I know all the bad things that happened in that war. I was in uniform for four years myself."
He was defending his visit to the Bitburg Military Cemetery. He spent the duration of World War II making military training videos in Hollywood. He was never a soldier.
"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes," during a radio microphone test in 1984
-
I agree with you Liberator that public opinion should not prevent one from doing the right thing. However, you also have to consider the possibility that a leader is misguided, or just flat out wrong. In this case, public opinion restrains him from doing that which he believes is right, but is in fact wrong. Its a system of checks and balances. The President should not have total power to do what he thinks is right. If he did, he weould not be a President at all, but rather an Emperor.
But aside from public opinion, do you think that Reagan's foreign policy was the right thing to do? Supporting dictatorships and so forth, in order to advance Amercian interests. Causing widespread suffering. Is this right?
-
SIDE NOTE: Jimmy Carter was a nice guy, sure, but he made the economy and life here in America as hard as it could be. With high interest rates, hostage crisis, (which he took no action to) high unemployment, high amounts of inflation, downsized military, etc. The only good thing he did was create a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. But the inflation and the horrible interest rates ran the country into the ground most of all. We were all screwed after he got into office, and when he lost his job as president and Reagan came into office, things started to look a whole lot brighter.
Reagan made this country on shining star after Jimmy Carter got out of office. Interest rates went down significantly, with tax breaks for everyone, inflation dropping out of site, and wouldn’t you know it, but the hostage situation was resolved after the terrorists released the hostages the day of his inauguration. You see, Reagan doesn’t take anything like that from anyone, and for sure he would have gone there within the week to get them. He resized the military back its former glory, and unemployment dropped to a minimum. Not to mention the economy rose by a third, and it was the greatest peace-time prosperity that the country had seen in a long time, which is why they call the time the “Reagan Era.”
Not to mention that small incident with Castro in Cuba, where the psycho terrorized Africa, Grenada, and Central America from Cuba. Carter didn’t give heads or tails about it, thinking if he was nice to Castro, Castro would be nice back. Didn’t happen. Reagan decided he could explore a diplomatic solution and met with the man himself in Mexico City, along with the Vice Prez. Castro didn’t even budge. So, Reagan said, “Suit yourself” and then within the year, Castro’s troops were stomped and booted out of Grenada and Africa. And so, the embargo on Cuba was placed, and it was mainly because Castro stole, (that’s STOLE, as in THEFT) 1.8 billion dollars from America, so we just cut him off. So, now he’s stiffing Russia for 50 billion, Europe for 4 billion, and all of its unioners. America is the only one who didn’t get stiffed by a madman because Reagan was holding the job steady.
If Carter was such a “great” and “prosperous” president, then why did Reagan win by a MASSIVE landslide, with a 489-49 electoral vote and 45 states to Carter’s 5. Sound coincidental? No. Carter just sucked. Reagan was left to clean up Carter’s mess and did an outstanding job. While raising national debt to fix up a torn and ravaged economy and paying for domestic programs to get the poor back on their feet, it goes to show that a Socialist would see this man proud, seeing as how HE cared for the lower income portion of America, that Carter to heartily oppressed. A criticism of Reagan's policies is that they created a situation in which the rich got richer while the poor got poorer. However, a 1990 Bureau of the Census study revealed that all income groups realized gains from 1980 to 1989. Average real income rose by 15%. Average household income for the lowest fifth was $6,836 in 1980 and $7,372 in 1989. The gains of those in the upper levels were greater, however -- in 1980 the average household income for the highest fifth was $73,752, and that rose to $90,150 in 1989. A Treasury Department study showed that there was great mobility within the levels, with 86 percent of those who were in the lowest fifth in 1979 moving into higher income categories by 1989. In fact, more people moved up than down in every income group except the top 1% -- in that group, 53% went down. The poverty rate did, however, rise from 11.7% in 1979 to 13.5% in 1990, according to Business Week. Provocateurs like Mitch Snyder used grossly exaggerated and misleading numbers to claim that an epidemic of homelessness reflected the government's callous attitude toward the less fortunate. (Snyder claimed there were 2-3 million homeless when, in fact, as a thorough study by HUD indicated, there were but 250,000 to 350,000; in 1989 Snyder admitted his figures were bogus.)
A little something I wrote a bit ago.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I am going to ask all you kids(and most of you are kids to me, I am nearly 26):
What would you do I his place?
In whose place? Bush II or Reagan? There's a lot of things I would have done differently than Reagan and Bush II. Strangely, I can't find much to argue about with Bush I. I did vote for the guy though. That might have been a mistake.
You don't know because your concern primarily with how others peceive you. The trademark of a True Leader is the willingness and ability to put aside public opinion and make the right decision.
Actually, I do know, because I really don't give a damn about how people percieve me. Its rather the hallmark of my personality and why I have so very few friends. It also drives my wife nuts.
Actually, that's not true. I give a damn how my wife percieves me.
The hallmark of good leadership lays in doing the right thing, and doing it the right way. Bush I knew this. Bush II does not. Its what separates the two, and one was an okay president and one is a horrible president.
Bush I went to war in the Gulf by first gathering the support of the free world. Did he do this to protect the United States' image, so we could be popular? I say no. He did it because this was not an American fight. This was a world issue. Bush II is not his father's son. Given the same situation, he alienated the rest of the world, our friends and allies, our trading partners, our friends. He told the world that the United States doesn't need them, and he commited US troops to invading a sovereign nation on a platform of lies, half truths, and suspicions.
That's the thing about The Left, they want to be President because of the personal power it brings, mostly because almost all of them are morally and ethically degenerates, more akin to animals than the ideal representative of humanity that they should be.
Really? That's pretty much how I view Bush II. He likes the personal power of being president, but he's a moral and ethical degenerate. How you can call someone who breaks a solemn oath (made before God! Go read the Oath of Office for officers in the National Guard) "moral and ethical" is beyond me. Is it because he vocally espouses the same religion you do, regardless of his failings, regardless of the lies he's told, regardless of the mistakes he's made? I'll draw the line at calling him names. I don't really think he's a 'degenerate'. But I do think he's a liar and an outright failure as the President of these United States.
Oh, and be careful of calling people "moral and ethical degenerates, more akin to animals", Liberator. By attacking people, you cross over into "he's a poopyhead!" territory. Personal attack isn't needed (that goes for Kazan too, but good luck getting him to listen).
-
"...more akin to animals ..."
hey look, liberator is demonstraiting the "not my kind" behavior, were a human can treat other humans as objects rather than people becase they are not within there cultural context (famely, religon, race, tribe). I am glad to see you useing your emotions so that people can juge you by who you realy are :)
"The trademark of a True Leader is the willingness and ability to put aside public opinion and make the right decision."
like gay marrages, opionion is 60% against it right?
nice to see that mayor in San Francisco showing true leadership :)
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
SIDE NOTE: Jimmy Carter was a nice guy, sure, but he made the economy and life here in America as hard as it could be. With high interest rates, hostage crisis, (which he took no action to) high unemployment, high amounts of inflation, downsized military, etc.
Inflation was bad, but the economy was also growing and keeping pace. That's something you might have missed.
As for the Cuban embargo, I think you'll find it started in 1960, not during the Reagan Era. Kennedy tightened it, Carter loosened it a bit, Reagan clamped it down hard. And to what real purpose? Cuba stopped being an eminent threat ages ago. Hate to tell you, but just because they're Communists doesn't mean we can't trade with them. We trade with China, and we opened trade with the Soviet Union long before they collapsed.
If you want to talk about Cuban support for revolutionaries and dictatorships, you need to go learn do US history. We've set up more puppet governments, mouth piece dictators and the like than any other nation on earth. If we didn't set them up, Reagan supported them. Saddam Hussein ring any bells for you?
If Carter was such a “great” and “prosperous” president, then why did Reagan win by a MASSIVE landslide, with a 489-49 electoral vote and 45 states to Carter’s 5.
Does that mean Bush I sucked and Clinton rocked? Because, as I recall, Clinton handed Bush I his tail, roasted and dressed. All this, coming out of nowhere, without even a carreer as an actor to back him up.
As for Reagan's economic policies, I point out, again, that he tripled the national deficit in eight years. If you adjust for inflation, Reagan's economic policies did indeed make 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer'. Whilst average salries went up in each group, unfortunately the gains were still not enough to keep pace with inflation (and Reagan didn't stop inflation, he slowed it down), resulting in the poor being worse off. Meanwhile, his economic policies led to the large scale rape of the American worker by the rich, who did indeed get richer faster than they ever had before under ANY prior American president. I say "prior" because Bush II's economic policies beat out even Reagan when it comes to scratching the rich man's back whilst stomping on the poor guy.
Whilst Reagan did indeed boost military spending and expanded the military (a good course of action, considering the timeframe), he also threw literally billions of dollars away on some of the worse defense spending decisions in the history of the nation. The B1B, whilst a technically brilliant aircraft, is one of the worse military financial mistakes ever made. "Star Wars" was equally a horrible decision, especially considering the program was acknowledged by even Reagan's experts to be a long shot.
Perhaps, you subscribe to that other famous Reagan quote, "Facts are stupid things."
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Not to mention that small incident with Castro in Cuba, where the psycho terrorized Africa, Grenada, and Central America from Cuba.
You really need to learn your history better.
1) America was the country that screwed around in Africa not Cuba. Cuba may have helped the communist goverment in Angola but the Amercans were to ones who backed Savimbi and his UNITA forces against the governement even after Savimbi was found guilty of commiting war crimes. When Angola finally had free democratic elections the MPLA won, UNITA then continued their campaign of terror in Angola and America didn't do anything to help put right the mess they made in that country until 9/11 forced them to reconsider who their friends and enemies were.
2) The invasion of Grenada was complete stupidity. Regan got it into his head that the students there were in danger from the cubans coming onto the island. Not only was there no danger but the cubans and americans were actually quite friendly (I saw interviews with some rather bemused students who said that they had played basketball with the cubans).
The cubans weren't there to take over Grenada. In fact they were only there to help build an airport so that Grenada could make more money from tourism.
Regan somehow got it into his head that this was a dangerous situations. He spent millions spying on the "military airbase" in Grenada to prepare for invasion. The BBC simply sent a reporter who the cubans were more than happy to show around the island.
In the firefight to take Grenada the american students on the island finally did feel there was a danger to them when the american troops opened fire on their building.
The invasion of Grenada achieved nothing. It was just pure stupidity. Regan pushed the invasion forwards even though there was no danger and his military advisors told him not to. Due to his stupidity and constant pushing for the military to speed up a group of navy seals sent in to reconoitre went straight to the bottom of the ocean. Due to his stupidity yet another hospital got bombed by American planes unable to find the correct target. Due to his stupidity the invasion of Grenada was planned on a road map from a petrol station!
If I were you Tin Can I'd continue the research because you don't know half as much as you think you do.
-
Reagans the guy that bombed lybia because the Iranians blew up an airliner right?
-
Originally posted by someone
"The trademark of a True Leader is the willingness and ability to put aside public opinion and make the right decision."
what, like Stalin?
-
Or Mao.
-
*insert list of dictators here*
-
Not Hitler though.
He did things the other way and engineered an overwhelming level of public support for his actions.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Not Hitler though.
He did things the other way and engineered an overwhelming level of public support for his actions.
Hard to judge, though. The Nazi's never had a majority before they were in power, and once they did get in, Hitler could use the various secret police and paramilitaries to force public opinion.
-
It doesn't really matter as the point is moot. Hitler's actions could hardly be considered the right ones.
-
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20040211.gif)
-
If I were you Tin Can I'd continue the research because you don't know half as much as you think you do.
And where the **** do you think I get this information from? Research, wise guy... if I have seen something or I am told something and I've heard OR seen it on a document, then I am obviously going to use that supposed "information" in my arguments. Not all of us lived the experience, so we had to find out for ourselves...
-
Just because you read it in Dr Seuss doesn't make it real.
-
It wasnt Dr. Seuss dumbass... :mad2:
-
Mmm, roast newbie.
-
I think "Burn, *****, burn" has more of a ring to it.
-
Gravy, I thought I would be bashed at some point.
-
Gravy
........I hate you so much.
-
I hate you too, your point being?
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
And where the **** do you think I get this information from? Research, wise guy... if I have seen something or I am told something and I've heard OR seen it on a document, then I am obviously going to use that supposed "information" in my arguments. Not all of us lived the experience, so we had to find out for ourselves...
That's why I said to continue it. It's obvious that you've done a fair bit but your sources are all very biased. It's obvious that they all paint Regan as a great man and gloss over or just flat out lie about his mistakes.
I'm suggesting you open your horizons a little and don't just listen to what you heard from them. Mikhael has corrected you twice about your assumptions that Carter left the economy in the toilet but you've just ignored him. Try reading a little about Regan from that point of view instead of assuming he's a great man just because several republican supporting publications tell you he is.
As for your comments about Cuban influence in Africa you might want to reconsider your statements before going on about what happened in Angola when you are speaking to someone who is half-angolan and who therefore keeps no doubt keeps a much closer eye on what happens in that country than you do.
-
The foreign policy is always going to be sketchy for me, but when my parents lived through Jimmy's mistakes and had to put up with his bull, and then had Regan and he fixed everything for them, they both agree it was the greatest president they have, and my mom is 50 and my dad is 45...
-
Doesn't mean they are correct. Sure Regan might have been good for them but that doesn't mean that he was great. The poll tax was a better system for my family than the community charge they replaced it with but I was very much against it because it seemed fundementally unfair to me.
Remember that it was Regan's foreign policy that took Osama Bin Laden from a life of luxury in Saudi Arabia and told him to fight a jihad. That shows very poor judgement but american presidents (and british PM's to be fair) continue to show the same poor judgement in raising up tin pot dictators and rebel leaders.
That doesn't make them great. It makes them idiots.
Besides if foreign policy is sketchy to you I suggest not trying to use it to support your arguements. Had you claimed that Regan was domestically a good president I wouldn't have even entered the discussion but if you're going to claim that his foreign policy which you admit you don't know well was sound then be prepared to be called on it.
-
To me, the foreign policy of a US President is by far the most important aspect of his presidency.
I mean, the domestic policy affects what, 200 million people. The forign policy affects the other 6 billion. If he's nice to 4% of the world's population, but an asshole to the other 96%, he's an asshole.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
To me, the foreign policy of a US President is by far the most important aspect of his presidency.
I mean, the domestic policy affects what, 200 million people. The forign policy affects the other 6 billion. If he's nice to 4% of the world's population, but an asshole to the other 96%, he's an asshole.
Unfortunatly, it's the 4% that do the voting (well, post votes and then have them disqualified).
The foreign policy of the US, I think, should play a massive role in how the leader is judged - simply because a superpower state wields so much power that the repercussions can reverberate for decades afterwards. Just look at the Iraq situation for a custom made example.... Reagan provided Saddam with satellite photography of Iranian troops and chemical weapons. Then Saddam felt he was 'owed' for taking on Iran, and invaded Kuwait....etc.
-
Let me, then, give you an alternative point of view, Tin Can.
My father is 54. My mother is 50. They lived through "Carter's mistakes" and all three of us lived through Reagan's. Indeed, Reagan fixed things for my father (and hence for me) by doubling the enlisted paycheck. My father thinks that Reagan was a great man.
However, we both agree that he wasn't such a hot president. See, my parents were there for the Carter years too. And they don't think that he did such a bad job.
Now, I have to ask you: if GDP was up, unemployment was declining, and the economy was growing WHEN REAGAN TOOK OFFICE, how can you say that Carter left the country in a shambles? Perhaps (now this is just a crazy idea) his administration put the cart back on the tracks?
Perhaps, the Vietnam War had screwed over the US economy pretty badly, draining it of both money and manpower. Perhaps--just perhaps--Carter took over a bad situation. Maybe, just for the sake of argument, his fiscal iniatives, which whilst not entirely effective, were the start of the 'prosperity' (if you want to call it that) of the Reagan era?
-
It's all Clinton's fault!
-
mik, using your logic G.W. arrived when the "dot bomb" went off and his policies stopped the recession from being worse than it is.
Do you own your own house, or are paying a mortgage? Odds are you couldn't have during the Carter administration, high interest rates and high taxes put a rather large clamp on what a young, middle-class couple could purchase on credit.
-
the dot-com bomb was well done and overwith before the election year even began
-
Do you really think so? Amazon didn't post a real profit till 2000 or 2001.
-
Coke or Pepsi; you decide. (http://www.johnpilger.com/print/133205)
-
Real nice, unbiased article there Rictor.
-
Aye, agree with ya there Lib, Pilgers one of the best journalists out there.
-
The thing is there used to be a thing called a reported who worked for newspapers and TV news stations. They reported the facts of a story and tended not to editorialize in they stories, they saved it for OpEds.
Nowadays, all we've got are Journalists with the only reporters being old men on the verge of retirment. It's very sad.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Do you really think so? Amazon didn't post a real profit till 2000 or 2001.
and that has to do with the dot-com bomb because?!
Amazon wasn't one of the companies riding the dot-bubble
-
A good deal of the companies who rode the dot com bubble collapsed. Good luck waiting for them to recover.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The thing is there used to be a thing called a reported who worked for newspapers and TV news stations. They reported the facts of a story and tended not to editorialize in they stories, they saved it for OpEds.
Eh, the first thing that comes up when you click on the link is ITV.com, one of the biggest tv channels in the UK. Theres also the names of two newspapers he writes for on a sidebar. And where has he said anything that isnt a fact, he may have worded in a way you dont like but that doesnt make it any less true.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The thing is there used to be a thing called a reported who worked for newspapers and TV news stations. They reported the facts of a story and tended not to editorialize in they stories, they saved it for OpEds.
Where and when was that? Every single article ever written has to have some sort of bias. And what about "Yellow Journalism", the thing that actually started the Spanish-American War?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
mik, using your logic G.W. arrived when the "dot bomb" went off and his policies stopped the recession from being worse than it is.
Nice idea, but you failed to check your dates. The "dot com" economy went "dot bomb" starting in 1998. The tech bubble was pretty much over by the the RUN UP to the 2001 election started, not after. Even with the bursting of the tech bubble, Clinton bequeathed Bush an economy that wasn't just growing, but whose rate of growth was accellerating, and a budget surplus that was growing and accelerating likewise. It took less than two years for Bush to reverse that growth rate and take us into deficits. Even if you discount the economic impact of September 11th--which is often exaggerated by the Bush administration--Bush's tax cuts and trade policies bear the lion's share of the blame for this hole that your children and theirs will be paying for. Just like, I guess, I had to pay for Reagan's horrible economic decisions. The only people who paid for Clinton's economic policies wer the one's paying taxes in the Clinton era. Imagine that. Paying in cash. Not sucking on the deficit like a leech.
You could attempt to draw a parallel between the Carter->Reagan and Clinton->Bush transititions, but the facts do not back you up.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The thing is there used to be a thing called a reported who worked for newspapers and TV news stations. They reported the facts of a story and tended not to editorialize in they stories, they saved it for OpEds.
Nowadays, all we've got are Journalists with the only reporters being old men on the verge of retirment. It's very sad.
So who would you say is a "journalist"?
Me, I was listening to NPR today. I listened to the news. They told me what the outcome of the Martha Stewart case was. They didn't give me any spin, or opinion, or editorialize. They just gave me the facts. In fact, that's generally what all the anchors on NPR do, and most of the ones (outside the editorials on the financial shows) on BBC do.
-
Speaking of the BBC, it was quite amusing listening to my AP American History teacher talk about how the British government issued the report on the BBC's war coverage. He seems to think he's a moderate, and doesn't quite realize that he's truly a conservative.
-
[q]He seems to think he's a moderate, and doesn't quite realize that he's truly a conservative.[/q]
I think wanker is more appropriate.
-
Form what little I know of John Pilger, he's an excellent journalist and more aware than anyone of the media bias present in modern society.
Lib: When Rupert Murdoch owns a media empire, and uses it to totally do away with journalistic integrity, I don't hear you saying anything. Does it not worry you that the man in charge of a significant portion of Western news services is also a staunch Republican? That would tend to put a *slight* bias on the news.
-
It's wierd, you know, but when I come to think of it the "dot bomb" didn't really seem to happen until much later than when the newspapers were going on about it. All I've really got to base that on is personal experience, but it seemed to me that most of the entrepeneurial tech companies symptomatic of the bubble I saw went up after the supposed "crash", with plenty of venture capital to go around, and that the jobs only started vaporizing right and left a couple years ago.
Not going to claim my anecdotal evidence is particularly compelling, but I wonder if anybody else noticed anything similar...
-
I was on the inside of the dot com crash, Stryke. Unix and Windows systems administration in internet server farms is my stock in trade. I'm not good for much else.
The bubble started to inflate before I got out of the Navy and pretty much hit its critical point in 1998. That's when VCs were willing to put up money for monitor-brightness-tuning-over-TCPIP and other such stupidity. Here in Research Triangle Park, we got to watch as company after company was started, got over funded, proceeded to hemmorhage money, and finally disappeared. We didn't have it as bad as Silicon Vallley though. Our local economy isn't entirely hard tech based. Pretty soon the VCs wised up and you actually had to show you had a product before you could get money. That was the beginning of the end. Around the middle of 1999, VCs started demanding immediate ROI, and when none was forth coming, started bringing in the lawyers. Add millennial stupidity on top of it, and it was an orgy of stupidity. Dot coms crashed and burned left and right.
Overnight, my field went from commanding $120k/yr to being lucking to get $60k (usually more like $30k-45k). Tech support people got really screwed, going from a $18/hr job to a $8.
It could have been worse though. The tech bubble could have vomited over the entire economy and taken more industries with it. It was all over before the 2001 election and its been pretty much stable ever since.
Mind you, the numbers I quote above are for my area. They're higher in Silicon Valley.
-
All right then. Where I used to live was always a few years late in everything, anyway, maybe that had something to do with it. :D
-
Good news. I had a stop at the library during my lunch hour which I skipped solely to have something for everyone. I went ahead and did a PAC search on the legacy of Ronald Reagan, and as a result got a fair sized book. I didnt read all of it, but I got through some of it. It CLEARLY states that Jimmy Carter left the US as he ran it, and tried desperately on the last days of election time to get the hostages released. (You know, that 444 day hostage crisis)
I just find it ironic how when Reagen said he planned to do something (not specifically) the guys just let him go some time after the innauguration. ;7
But, the shocking truth I learned was that the tax system benifited only 1 million of the populous while the rest lost about 350 bucks. MY OH MY!
-
IIRC, the reason that the Iranians released the hostages on the day of Reagan's inauguration was basically designed to be an insult to Carter.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
When Rupert Murdoch owns a media empire, and uses it to totally do away with journalistic integrity, I don't hear you saying anything. Does it not worry you that the man in charge of a significant portion of Western news services is also a staunch Republican? That would tend to put a *slight* bias on the news.
You could say the same thing about Ted Turner being a loyal, boot-licking Demoncat...er, Democrat.
Sadly, the question has become, who do you believe bends, or outright destroys, the truth? For my part, the staff at Fox, upto and including Mr. Alan Colmes, my second favorite liberal, have at least attempted to maintain some form of integrity, instead of becoming shills for whoever the Democrat'de jour is.
-
Okay, no more drugs for you.
-
Could go either way, really. Too many drugs or too few.
-
Trust me, when his brain is that damaged, it's too many.
-
But the scary thing is that it might be that he's done none at all.
-
Does religion qualify as an opiate in these circumstances?
-
Karl Marx seemed to think so.
-
(http://www.greencis.net/~dianeleigh/bushpilots.jpg)(http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040228/i/r1633574988.jpg)
"It's a tough one."
-
What? A guy who ducked out of his service dressing like a pilot and a guy who doesn't play American football failing to catch a ball. I fail to see a point.
-
That anybody over eight years old should be capable of catching a ball without shutting their eyes and throwing up their hands like it's a concrete block, particularly when attempting to run a country as preoccupied with gender roles as ours?
Maybe the football's full of concrete. That would change matters entirely.
-
Concrete eh? You've just given me an idea.
-
What you don't see in those pictures is that Kerry was missing a pass from a 5 year old to make the kid feel better about his own feebleness; And the charred corpses of the two airmen who Bush just ordered to go bomb a Red Cross building.
-
Wh? How did the airmen become charred corpses?
And why does Kerry, no matter what the intention of the cameraman, always look like an utter dork?
-
The entire post was a criticism of the American armed forces and Bush's policies.
-
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/reciprocity/bushpilots.jpg)
-
I always vote for the tallest one
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
He looks like a dork, so he must be worthless as a candidate. Right? As opposed to Bush, who always look very confused as if he's wondering why missing the Power Rangers is worth this - this stupid little speech to some backwards ass little town. Oh wait, thats Washington.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I always vote for the tallest one
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
He looks like a dork, so he must be worthless as a candidate. Right? As opposed to Bush, who always look very confused as if he's wondering why missing the Power Rangers is worth this - this stupid little speech to some backwards ass little town. Oh wait, thats Washington.
apparently, the odd of getting elected in a US Presidental race always are in favour of the taller candidate.......
-
He looks like a dork, so he must be worthless as a candidate.
There's that, but what makes Kerry most contemptible are his apparent feelings on the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, on which he was quoted as saying "the DUP cannot be permitted to disenfranchise half the population of Northern Ireland by refusing to form a government with Sinn Fein".
Quite contrary to Bush's notion of a terror-free world, he appears to be advocating one where the views of terrorists and murderers come before those of decent people. Not a man I'd like to see in the White House.
-
I suspect there are people here far more qualified to speak on the Irish/British issue than I am, but for my money, ignoring those with legitimate complaints and casting a huge dragnet labelling them all terrorists is even worse.
I don't want a man in the White House who simply labels anyone he wants as a terrorist and proceeds to **** hammer them out of existence. If nothing else, its the pinacle (sp?) of hypocricy.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
There's that, but what makes Kerry most contemptible are his apparent feelings on the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, on which he was quoted as saying "the DUP cannot be permitted to disenfranchise half the population of Northern Ireland by refusing to form a government with Sinn Fein".
Quite contrary to Bush's notion of a terror-free world, he appears to be advocating one where the views of terrorists and murderers come before those of decent people. Not a man I'd like to see in the White House.
Sinn Fein represents a good proportion of the population of Northern Ireland, so regardless of what they do that is exactly what the DUP is doing. Its also worthwhile to note that the DUP is the political wing of Loyalist terrorists, and the British government itself was directly implicated in the Dublin and Monaghan terrorist bombs as well as colluding with loyalist terrorists on quite a number of occasions. So saying one party has no right to be part of the government because of their actions is hypocritical. Whether you like it or not, IRA have a considerable amount of political clout and following in the North, which is kinda understandable when you consider what your countrys done to mine over the last few centurys, so forcing them out of the peace process is not an option.
-
pinnacle, Rictor.
I find it ironic that Liberator considers Colmes a "liberal". Fox calls him a liberal, but that's like sitting in Death Valley and calling the Mohave Desert 'cold'. Sure, by comparison to the immediate surroundings, perhaps.
I wonder, does Liberator also think that O'Reilly was a liberal democrat when he started his tenure at Fox?
-
Oh, and Liberator, I'm still waiting for your list of 'journalists' who just report the news, without adding spin or their own opinions.
-
an0news[/i]: Just the facts, regardless of their relevance.[/color]
-
To start with:
Drudge
Most of the Wall Street Journal
Most of your local Newsmen and Newswomen
The point is the sources that people get there news from, i.e. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, ect., slant left and you can't deny it. Fox only appears to slant right because they are unbiased.
Have any of you ever learned how to fly a high performance fighter jet? I haven't but I would assume it takes longer than four months, which BTW is the amount of time Kerry spent in Vietnam. When he got back to this country he basically stabbed his fellow servicemen in the back.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
To start with:
Drudge
Waiittamo - isn't that the same smug arsehole who was posted in a link up here blatantly lying his arse off about the Hutton report?
-
Originally posted by Gank
Sinn Fein represents a good proportion of the population of Northern Ireland, so regardless of what they do that is exactly what the DUP is doing. Its also worthwhile to note that the DUP is the political wing of Loyalist terrorists, and the British government itself was directly implicated in the Dublin and Monaghan terrorist bombs as well as colluding with loyalist terrorists on quite a number of occasions. So saying one party has no right to be part of the government because of their actions is hypocritical. Whether you like it or not, IRA have a considerable amount of political clout and following in the North, which is kinda understandable when you consider what your countrys done to mine over the last few centurys, so forcing them out of the peace process is not an option.
You've kinda missed the point there. The whole reason behind the Unionists' rejection of Sinn Fein is because they failed to live up to their side of the agreement to stop their 'associated' paramilitaries' actions. Whatever blame can be apportioned to either side, it is the republicans who have violated and continue to violate the peace process and unionists have every right to cry foul of Sinn Fein. The Irish PM himself asserts that republican violence is to blame for the deadlock. It's quite understandable why the DUP isn't cosy to the idea of power sharing with a group of people who care less about the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement than they do.
So Kerry's vision of a Northern Ireland where republican paramilitaries can get away with whatever they want without the unionists being able to do anything but sit idly by shows how committed to the 'war on terror' he really is. And let's not start on the myriad defense bills Kerry has voted against...
-
YEs, Aldo, it is.
The Wall Street Journal's articles tend to be unbiased, but the entire paper picks its stories very carefully with a conservative slant. That's okay, because its a primarily financial publication, and its their job to be conservative.
Drudge is hugely slanted to the right. This is evidenced in the strong preponderance of 'reporting' (if you can call repeating rumors reporting) in the Drudge Report being critical of the left side of a debate, with very little critical examination of the left. In cases where the Drudge Report has been wrong, its failed utterly to report its mistakes (A famous example: witness the 'vanalism' in the White House, which the Bush Administration said was fabricated. The Drudge Report reported these rumors as fact and never reported its mistake.) I'm surprised though, that one can refer to a "Report" that admits to basing most everything it reprints on rumor and second hand information, with little more no actual investigation 'journalism'. I suppose that the Weekly World News counts as 'journalism' by that standard.
I still notice that you didn't name names, Liberator. You named publications and networks. I asked for journalists, not their journals.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Fox only appears to slant right because they are unbiased.
You owe me a new spine. I broke my last one when I fell of my chair laughing at that! :lol:
-
[q]IIRC, the reason that the Iranians released the hostages on the day of Reagan's inauguration was basically designed to be an insult to Carter.[/q]
You lot should learn from us Brits about Iranian-related (read: Embassy) hostage situations. ;)
[q]I suspect there are people here far more qualified to speak on the Irish/British issue than I am, but for my money, ignoring those with legitimate complaints and casting a huge dragnet labelling them all terrorists is even worse.
[/q]
I think he was meaning that the British Govt. allowing in a group who had known links to the IRA wasn't exactly... sane. From a Brit perspective at least.
-
Originally posted by vyper
You lot should learn from us Brits about Iranian-related (read: Embassy) hostage situations. ;)
They did try. It's just that they failed miserably. They managed to lose 8 people before they even encountered any hostile Iranian forces and decided to give up and return to base.
-
[q]It's just that they failed miserably. [/q]
Or the US could just get us to send in the SAS then. :lol:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
To start with:
Drudge
Most of the Wall Street Journal
Most of your local Newsmen and Newswomen
The point is the sources that people get there news from, i.e. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, ect., slant left and you can't deny it. Fox only appears to slant right because they are unbiased.
Have any of you ever learned how to fly a high performance fighter jet? I haven't but I would assume it takes longer than four months, which BTW is the amount of time Kerry spent in Vietnam. When he got back to this country he basically stabbed his fellow servicemen in the back.
No way is Fox unbiased. Not even I as a moderate conservative can deny that Fox anchors are often on the verge of foaming at the mouth, and I've only watched about a half hour of it in total in my life. Personally I'd rather watch the BBC and cut my own way through its somewhat more subtle leftist agenda.
You're right about Kerry though. From townhall.com (emphasis mine):
The Kerry campaign insists on keeping his Vietnam record front-and-center. According to his website, "When John Kerry returned home from Vietnam, he joined his fellow veterans in vowing never to abandon future veterans of America's wars. Kerry's commitment to veterans has never wavered and stands strong to this day."
...
Upon his return home, however, Kerry abandoned each and every one of his fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines on the ground in Vietnam -- not to mention the people of South Vietnam -- by fomenting wartime discord. In his now infamous 1971 testimony before Congress, Kerry said American soldiers were war criminals, claiming they "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs ... poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
Kerry went on: "I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground, and all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to The Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty."
I'm sure Vietnam wasn't the most clean war waged, but Kerry's barbaric assumptions - assumptions by his own admission - say wonders about his views on his fellow soldiers. May Bush stay comfortable in the Oval Office, if only to keep this idiot out.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
You've kinda missed the point there. The whole reason behind the Unionists' rejection of Sinn Fein is because they failed to live up to their side of the agreement to stop their 'associated' paramilitaries' actions. Whatever blame can be apportioned to either side, it is the republicans who have violated and continue to violate the peace process and unionists have every right to cry foul of Sinn Fein. The Irish PM himself asserts that republican violence is to blame for the deadlock. It's quite understandable why the DUP isn't cosy to the idea of power sharing with a group of people who care less about the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement than they do.
So Kerry's vision of a Northern Ireland where republican paramilitaries can get away with whatever they want without the unionists being able to do anything but sit idly by shows how committed to the 'war on terror' he really is. And let's not start on the myriad defense bills Kerry has voted against...
Tell you what, you go atually read the good friday agreement and come back and tell me what part of it the provos arent adhering too. You obviously dont have a clue what it actually says. Its actually the British government who havent lived up to their side, the IRA has gone above and beyond its side of the agreement with decommisioning, which originally wasnt a pre-requisite. And Bertie Ahern is a bollix, the only reason hes still in power is because theres nobody to replace him with.
Ian Paisley the DUP have fought against the good friday agreement tooth and nail since it came in so dont spout ****e about them being worried about the "spirit" of it being violated. The DUP is looking for any excuse to try and prevent the good friday agreement from being realised, because it means they will have to share power equally with nationalists, something they've never done and never will if they can help it.
Anyways I get the feeling I'm wasting my time even discussing this with you.
-
Originally posted by vyper
I think he was meaning that the British Govt. allowing in a group who had known links to the IRA wasn't exactly... sane. From a Brit perspective at least.
British government itself was linked to loyalist paramilitarys, financing them, supplying them intel and using them as death squads so they couldnt really say much about it. Besides you cant have peace talks with only one side of the conflict now can you?
Originally posted by vyper
You lot should learn from us Brits about Iranian-related (read: Embassy) hostage situations. ;)
Bit of a difference rescueing hostages from an embassy under siege in London with an army of freindly surrounding it and rescueing hostages from an embassy under siege in Tehran with a country of hostiles surrounding it. Its probably just as well the deltas hit that sandstorm, the operation was a bit ambitious to say the least
-
Gank said:
Tell you what, you go atually read the good friday agreement and come back and tell me what part of it the provos arent adhering too. You obviously dont have a clue what it actually says. Its actually the British government who havent lived up to their side, the IRA has gone above and beyond its side of the agreement with decommisioning, which originally wasnt a pre-requisite. And Bertie Ahern is a bollix, the only reason hes still in power is because theres nobody to replace him with.
Ian Paisley the DUP have fought against the good friday agreement tooth and nail since it came in so dont spout ****e about them being worried about the "spirit" of it being violated. The DUP is looking for any excuse to try and prevent the good friday agreement from being realised, because it means they will have to share power equally with nationalists, something they've never done and never will if they can help it.
Anyways I get the feeling I'm wasting my time even discussing this with you.
From this summary of the Good Friday Agreement (http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/ggfa.htm)
...
Security issues
All participants to work for paramilitary disarmament by May 2000 (!)
British government commits to reform policing and criminal justice system
Both governments commit to release prisoners
And yeah, you're probably wasting your time 'discussing' this, if you can call your convenient little circumvention of the facts that. The IRA and its splinter groups were supposed to be rid of arms 4 years ago. (Not that the prospect of 'guns for governance' is a prospect at all appealing to me, but it's what we're stuck with now.) THERE's your violation of the GFA by the provos. Get a clue.
The GFA was, nay, IS a tragedy. It hasn't worked just as every sensible opponent to it predicted. Terrorist arms are still as rife as ever. Paramilitary activity has not ceased. Tension and hatred is still rife between the two communities. And if the British governments that brought it in and supported it (under John Major and Tony Blair) had not been so feeble-minded a more practical solution might've been in place by now. And worst of all, for nothing in return the government has released an assortment of evil murderers and thugs back on to the streets, the most morally repugnant 'detail' of the Agreement.
And don't blither on about links from government to paramilitary forces when the leader and deputy leader of Sinn Fein were both IRA commanders during the height of violence and who by right should be rotting to death in prison right now.
-
ALL PARTICIPANTS
Not just one. You're saying its all right for loyalists to continue their violence and keep their guns but the IRA is ? Can you say Hypocrite? IRA decomissioned some weapons, loyalists refused to do the same, yet the IRA is to blame for the deadlock? Bull****.
Originally posted by SadisticSid
And don't blither on about links from government to paramilitary forces when the leader and deputy leader of Sinn Fein were both IRA commanders during the height of violence and who by right should be rotting to death in prison right now.
As were several DUP members. But you're not going to want to hear about that either.
Its pretty obvious you're heavily biased towards one side here., I'm not going to waste my time debating pure hypocrisy like this.
Btw if you think either bush or Kerry is going to lean heavy on the IRA in an election year you're an idiot.
-
**** em. They're both at fault
Shove both the UDP & Sinn Fein out the parliament unless they promise complete & immediate decomissioning - there should be plenty of moderate parties out there who aren't tainted by terrorism. And if there's not, provide funding for them - whether unionist or nationalist.
Then give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on being part of the UK or Eire.
And lock up all the released terrorists until this happens. If the IRA or UVf carries out an attack, promise to double the sentences of all their prisoners - i.e. hostages. Play them at their own game.
-
Originally posted by Gank
British government itself was linked to loyalist paramilitarys, financing them, supplying them intel and using them as death squads so they couldnt really say much about it. Besides you cant have peace talks with only one side of the conflict now can you? I'm not saying anything about moral superiority. Yes you're right you can't have peace talks but you can put certain conditions on.
Bit of a difference rescueing hostages from an embassy under siege in London with an army of freindly surrounding it and rescueing hostages from an embassy under siege in Tehran with a country of hostiles surrounding it. Its probably just as well the deltas hit that sandstorm, the operation was a bit ambitious to say the least I'm still putting money on the SAS/British Army managing it.;)
-
I've always said that the goverment could have ended the threat of the Real IRA by telling the IRA prisonners who got early release that they'd be thrown back in jail if attacks continued. The Real IRA would have shown up with their throats cut within a week. :)
-
Originally posted by vyper
I'm still putting money on the SAS managing it
I'd put money on them at least being able to check the weather report and realise that strong winds + desert = sandstorm :D
-
The political wing of the UVF is the PUP and the political wing of the UDA/UFF is the UDP. Don't sour the DUP's name with such garbage.
Aldo, such a referendum happened 25 years ago, and in a far more violent time. It would be unlikely to happen again because the answer would no doubt be the same as it was then - that most residents of NI would want to stay part of the UK. The republicans would never advocate such a course of action, obviously. Why else would the unionist parties have most of the vote?
And Gank, I don't think Kerry would make a big deal out of this for the moment, at least. But the current policy of non-interference from the US is the only correct one, and Kerry is an idiot for even considering otherwise.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
The political wing of the UVF is the PUP and the political wing of the UDA/UFF is the UDP, both separatist parties. Don't sour the DUP's name with such garbage.
Fixed. I did believe it was the UDP, actually, it was just the DUP references in earlier posts that confused me.
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Aldo, such a referendum happened 25 years ago, and in a far more violent time. It would be unlikely to happen again because the answer would no doubt be the same as it was then - that most residents of NI would want to stay part of the UK. The republicans would never advocate such a course of action, obviously. Why else would the unionist parties have most of the vote?
[/B]
Well, promise regualr, 15-yealy referendums. Take the decision out of the politicians and terrorists hands, and put it into the peoples.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
I'm sure Vietnam wasn't the most clean war waged, but Kerry's barbaric assumptions - assumptions by his own admission - say wonders about his views on his fellow soldiers. May Bush stay comfortable in the Oval Office, if only to keep this idiot out.
I'm sorry if it doesn't sit well with you, but its the truth. Its been well documented by now, and barbaric is the only term for it. Or do you somehow think that just because it was Americans, they were incapable of it? He's an idiot for not burying his head in the sand about the atrocities in Vietnam?
And I'll just keep quite on the Irish/British stuff, cause I can't speak inteligently. But, wasn't the entire Anglican religion (or offshoot, whatever) created cause the King wanted a divorce? Seems a shallow thing to found a religion on.
-
That wouldn't solve the problem though, only delay it. The terrorists would still attack and the government would ***** about not being able to do anything about it.
If they had any balls at all, they would quit wasting their time with the damn paperwork and dust every single one of the buggers. I mean it's not like the government doesn't know who they are.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I'm sorry if it doesn't sit well with you, but its the truth. Its been well documented by now, and barbaric is the only term for it. Or do you somehow think that just because it was Americans, they were incapable of it? He's an idiot for not burying his head in the sand about the atrocities in Vietnam?
I'm not denying there were atrocities during the Vietnam war. Far from it (although I can't quite believe Americans beheading civilians as Kerry asserts, unless you can show me evidence to the contrary). Only that Kerry's use of his 'war record' (and objection to the war in which he fought) and 'support of veterans' (despite tarring many no doubt innocent soldiers with the same brush) shows what a hypocrite he is.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I mean it's not like the government doesn't know who they are.
Ever heard of the term 'sleeper cell'?
-
DUP member John Smyth for South Antrim is a convicted UVF bomber. Ian Paisley himself has admitted in the house of commons he was a member of an illegal paramilitary organisation in the past. Apparently its ok for these former terrorists to be in government while for other former terrorists its not.
Aldo, they are both at fault, IRA/Sinn Fein hasnt done as much as it should and the DUP's been anti-agreement from the start, problem is you cant do anything without either. Theres a few moderate partys, but given the history of the north the hardliners get more support, hatred and fear are easier to run on then tolerance.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I'm sorry if it doesn't sit well with you, but its the truth. Its been well documented by now, and barbaric is the only term for it. Or do you somehow think that just because it was Americans, they were incapable of it? He's an idiot for not burying his head in the sand about the atrocities in Vietnam?
And I'll just keep quite on the Irish/British stuff, cause I can't speak inteligently. But, wasn't the entire Anglican religion (or offshoot, whatever) created cause the King wanted a divorce? Seems a shallow thing to found a religion on.
On the Anglican religion, that's about right. They broke off from the Roman Catholic Church because the Pope refused to annul Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragón.
-
He also made himself head of the church. Got married 6 time iirc, though some of them he killed instead of divorcing.
-
Rictor, I just want to hear you say, that the Americans wern't the only ones doing bad things in Vietnam.
-
I was just referring to what kicked it off. After that, of course, you had an interesting hundred years or so, with the death of the Plantagenet line, the ascension of the Stuarts, the execution of Charles I by Oliver Cromwell, Charles II reclaiming the crown, and then James II being replaced by the current ruling family.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Aldo, they are both at fault, IRA/Sinn Fein hasnt done as much as it should and the DUP's been anti-agreement from the start, problem is you cant do anything without either. Theres a few moderate partys, but given the history of the north the hardliners get more support, hatred and fear are easier to run on then tolerance.
Well, yeah - didn't I just say that?
That's why you get rid of the hard-liners. :nod:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Rictor, I just want to hear you say, that the Americans wern't the only ones doing bad things in Vietnam.
Of course not. No one, myself included, is suggesting that the VC had any reservations regarding brutality in warfare. But I'de like you hear you say that neither did the Americans. Hard though it may be for you to believe, I am not one to go after the Americans without some thought put into the matter. Vietnam was a bloody, messy war, on both sides.
There is something to be said for the opportunity for attrocities, since the Americans had no civilians on the ground while the Vietnamese had, well, a whole country.
-
Aldo, the problem is you cant get rid of them because they both get the most votes from their respective communitys, cut them out and the bombs start going off again. Better to have them arguing over a table.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Aldo, the problem is you cant get rid of them because they both get the most votes from their respective communitys, cut them out and the bombs start going off again. Better to have them arguing over a table.
Meh. Gotta do something to get them moving...... at the moment they won;t speak to each other, let alone argue.
Threats, coercion, bribes, whatever.
EDIt - I know, I know, it's stupid and insane and whatnot. But they;ve tried everything else, and maybe it is time for desperate measures. We have enough sectarian problems in Glasgow, and we're across the sea......
-
thank you :)
the Americans had no reservations regarding brutality in warfare.
it is a war, war = brutality.
you can't be to compasonate to the person who is trying to kill you.
and it is oftine hard to tell the diference between the enemy and noncombatants (even when rationaly it's obvius).
-
There's a difference between lack of compassion and sadism.
Naturally, when you train people explicitly to kill other people you get quite a surplus of both, but since we like to maintain pretenses that war is somehow a remotely civilized affar, sort of like a duel involving thousands, the distinction should be made.
-
Change will come about, but it'll take time for it to do so. To be honest a lot of its posturing, my last boss was from Tyrone and he told me that up home if anybody from the nationalist side wanted anything done they went to a Unionist politican and vice versa. Probably different in more sectarian parts but at the end of the day its all about power. The DUP has even voted with Sinn fein against the UUP on occasion: http://www.billyarmstrong.co.uk/dup_motion.htm
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
There's a difference between lack of compassion and sadism.
Naturally, when you train people explicitly to kill other people you get quite a surplus of both, but since we like to maintain pretenses that war is somehow a remotely civilized affar, sort of like a duel involving thousands, the distinction should be made.
It is just that, a pretense. We like to pretend that our missles are "precise". We like to pretend our bombs are "smart". We like to pretend our soldiers are "compassionate" or at the very least "professional". But they are none of those things.
We like to paint a cookie rainbow facade over the realities of war. Soldiers letters home to their kids. Embedded reporters sharing the harships of life in the trenches. Average Joe, with a mortage to pay and a pregnant wife.
Just like you.
Soldiers are portrayed as simple, honest men just serving their country. Though this they may very well be, this is not what they are on the battlefield. This is not what they are when they pump round after round into some poor kid's chest. Or when they fire a tank shell through the wall of a residential building.
I am of the opinion that the reality should be embraced. Its so much easier to condone war when all you get is a shadow of the truth. Its so much easier to vote for Bush when you don't have to see the wall painted red with a 9 year old's brains. If you see enough Black Hawk Downs and Tears of the Suns, you may start to believe it. And that should not be allowed to happen.
If you're American, and you pay taxes, and you voted for Bush, you might as well have picked up the gun and pulled the trigger yourself.
/sits and waits for backlash
-
when you train men to kill, and put them into a stressfull situation, and a situation were they feel there are no consequences, you are bound to develop a few phycopaths, there's no denying that.
"If you're American, and you pay taxes, and you voted for Bush, you might as well have picked up the gun and pulled the trigger yourself."
you do know that's something Usama said, right?
-
Doesnt sound anything like something Osama would say, and googling it came up with nothing. Where did you see this Bobboau?
-
I wasn't going anywere, but Usama said that the people of america are all valid to kill becase they all pay taxes and are therefore all responsable for the actions of the US government/military.
-
That's a rather different statement, though, isn't it? A perfectly accurate declaration of complicity, uncomfortable as it may be to you, does not equal license to murder.
-
Especially since in most cases I would venture to guess that the complicity is out of ignorance of the facts, not hatred.
And needless to say, I don't consider tax payer legit targets. Partly guilty, yes. But in my book, if you are unarmed and are not a *major* financial contributer who is also aware of the consequences of your support, you are not a legitimate target.
-
You talk like U.S. soldiers are souless automotons. They are in fact some of the finest men and women on the face of the planet, they have the courage to put their lives on the line me and the rest of you lame@$$ all-talk-jockeys. For that I am grateful, because I'll be honest I haven't got the balls for combat, and most of the rest of us don't either.
You talk like they've had they're humanity removed. When it is a choice between putting a tank round through a house that my friends are taking fire from and letting them die, the house loses.
Do innocents die in war? Yes.
However, as you should be aware, from watching TV if nothing else, American Soldiers are taught how to avoid unnecessary casualties in combat. If they do they're job right there are none. The only times you hear about it is when there is a foul up, or one of Bob's sickos show his true colors. There shouldn't be many sicko's in a purely volunteer military anyway, the system is put together to wash them out.
-
There there, Libby. *pat pat*
Now go run off with your pop-up Old Testament and toy gay-beatin' stick and play, the grownups are talking now.
Rictor: Legitimate targets for... what? Maybe it was me who had the wrong impression about what you were talking about.
-
-
Legitimate targets for killing. Its was implied that I considered taxpayers legit targets becuase allegedly Osama said something similar to my statement, so I just wanted to clear up that I do not. Yup...
And Liberator, I'll admit it too. I don't think I'de have the balls to go off and fight a war. I don't know because I never tried, but I somehow doubt I would go willingly unless it was for a very good cause.
However, I think you might be mistaken when you state that training (well, infantry anyway) is meant to take the savage out of the soldier. I think its the opposite. Because borderline psychopath make great killers, and in war you need killers. It does not serve the military's pupose to present the opponents as human beings. I mean, do you want a soldier getting all tear-eyed every time he has to take down a suspected enemy? Education is not in the best interests of the Army, as it is likely to lead more than a few soldiers to question the validity of the things which they are fighting for.
It is TV and especially movies that help perpetuate this myth that soldiers (specifically US becuase they are being discussed, but most soldiers) are trained to avoid civilian casualties. I mean, just look at the number of dead civilians since the begging of the occupation.
If your impression comes only from TV and movies, then I would invite you to question the source of that impression and the bias it is likely to have. Have you ever, ever seen any movie depict US soldiers as anything less than heros, and the enemy as anything less than savages.
In my book, a guy with a turban and an AK defending his home is a greater hero than a GI in a foreign country fighting for paycheck and status as a hero.
Ofcourse, the means are, to me, somewhat less important than the ends. You can invade a country and be the best, most caring, occupation in the world, but if the reason you invaded is wrong, then you are wrong to be there.
How can you recongize a terrorist if you can't even define the word. Thats the problem. If you are going to go and fight ina foreign country, you have to have a very good idea of why you are there. Most soldiers are grunts. Sounds bad, but its true. They follow orders and thats that. They have no idea, or not a true idea, of what gives them the right to killer other people in their own country.
-
it doesn't help national/international PR when a US soldiers goes into a town and systematicly rapes and murders everything warmblooded though, so surely there must be _some_ 'these are the things you _shouldn't_ kill' training.
and it wasn't the US that killed 140/270 (depending on who you ask) Iraqis the other day
-
Somebody tell me when the last time we heard of a US soldier or soldiers raping and/or pillaging they're way into a village? Then proceed to tell me how they were dealt with.
Most of you people have no concept of what it means to have honor or to place that honor above all things including your life do you? You think I'm crazy when I attempt to defend, albeit feebly at times, the honor of my country or my faith? Their honor and dishonor are mine because I claim fealty to them. Your attacks on their honor are attacks on my honor. The people who lead nations must be people of high honor and integrity, not two-faced dishonorable scum not worthy to share the same space with the likes of Washington, Lincoln or Kennedy.
For those who would attack my words and use the wrong definitions to cloud the issue:
Honor: a keen sense of ethical conduct
Integrity: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values
Red is for blood of patriots who have died to free us.
White is for justice and government of law.
Blue is for honor and faith in all we do.
This is my flag...this is Old Glory...the Red, White and Blue.
-
that was my point exactly
read
(though now that you mention it there was an incedent involveing some US military personel in Korea not to long ago)
-
Thats my point too. It never gets reported. But, I'll try to dig up some articles.
Oh and, just to stir the pot (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/400454.html). Interesting, especially considering the source.
-
I know we raped in Vietnam because we had all those crossbreeds who we had a program sponsored to bring them home. Sure, rape is wrong, but if your a soldier and all you've been around is hot, sweaty men for a while, your gay hormones need to be toned down a notch. Im sure the guys just go nuts and rape everything in sight. No idea.
But other then that I havent heard of any major conflicts in Iraq as of late. Just skirmish with casual guys who always get their asses whipped.
-
dude there is no justification for rape.
and I don't know about you, but being around hot sweaty guys, if anything lowers my 'gay hormones'.
-
I never said there was any justifacation. I just said that these guys probably have an urge...
And when I said being around them ALL the time would really mess things up with your sexual preferences.
-
There is such a thing as self-control.
The sexual urge is relatively easy to overcome, even if you've been locked in a box for 6 weeks.
Granted that some degenerates raped and murdered in Vietnam, but most of the children(we'll never know exactly) were issue from consentual couplings either with prostitutes or also young nubile Vietnamese girls who were given to American soldiers by thankful Vietnamese fathers.
BTW, I like this site (http://www.childrenloveamerica.org/index.html). Most of the works are from children, if they get it, why don't so many adults.This page especially (http://www.childrenloveamerica.org/pledge.html), you'll never, ever misunderstand the pledge ever again.
-
Wow, given. Doesnt that kinda - sorta go like slavery? Bah, it will just cause more problems if we talk about anything.
Its about teh politics! Bring it on!
-
Liberator, you have not the bleeding first clue about what you're going on about, which is why you need to resort to canned expressions of "honor" rather than exhibiting anything heartfelt. You project this glamorous altruism on random authority figures because you lack anything worth fighting for or that you can give a damn about in your own life, and your snide little personal attacks against anybody who examines the issue any further belie your addict's need for the illusion.
Soldiers are soldiers. Trained killers. There is no honor inherent in the position, nor is valuing human life part of the training. In a wartime situation, a few men have the trait and misfortune to exhibit valor and altruism (and it always is unfortunate, never mind the silly way Hollywood paints the glamorous hero riding into the sunset- the very luckiest ones get a quick death). Quite a lot, freed from the confines of any ordered social construct and whatever repressions kept them from taking a semiautomatic rifle to their office place years before, descend into barbarism of a sort that often far exceeds any misanthropy one can see in more civilized times. The absolute vast majority simply "do their job" and act neither courageous nor monstrous- they will generally mow down a village if given orders (as has been done many times in the past and will continue to be), will sometimes engage in relatively risky maneuvers when told to do so, and are generally just the stuff of militaries all over the world. These same proportions can be seen in the civilian populace, and the various people going into the military- the people who genuinely believe in some higher ideal or that they're saving the world, the "I wanna kill ****" types, and the ones who're just looking for a steady paycheck and maybe some direction and never expected to get thrown into a combat zone and shot at in the first place. Collectively, they're meat for the grinder, as far as politics is concerned. No more, no less, and questions of individual valor or evil are irrelevant.
Where it gets more interesting is the command chain, where we lose the generalities that always result from attempting to describe a huge group of people. A good commander will recognize that, at the end of things, these are human beings being dealt with, like them and the ones they know, that no matter what the outcome war is a sum total loss for the human race at large, that the benefits of conflict rarely outweigh the cost in lives and shattered nations (and shattered everything else). And they will accordingly try to avert it in all cases but where the toll on humanity would almost certainly be incredibly vast otherwise, or where the gains seem incredibly great. A bad commander has his vision obfuscated by politics, sees anybody not his countryman (and even most of them) as subhuman, animals that will either obey or be slapped down, and soldiers as mere automatons to do the slapping and make them look good. They will engage in conflict for often deeply personal aims, apathetic to the horrors that occur on the road to victory, and a truly awful one will once they have attained what they came for they often toy with it and abandon all else, ignoring the misery of the conquered and the menace of the future in exchange for momentary gains.
Now. Here we have a man who plans a war years in advance of any evidence of a threat (whether you believe he knew the evidence was false or not, he didn't have it when the war started ramping up), who did so on a flimsy and weak pretext and then followed it up with a pretext that would hardly prove a relative benefit even if carried out, who when warned of a potentially disastrous death rate tells the opposing armies to "bring it on", who has already left one country in anarchic shambles after a bloody conflict with no apparent gain to be had at all other than in forcing one man to change addresses temporarily (something he's been doing for years), and who seems to be well on the way towards doing exactly the same thing to another country. Furthermore, he's specifically invited some of his most prominent financiers to reap the sole spoils of war, and there is once again no return for the greater good at all but the greater good of the heads of Halliburton.
The world is a worse place for Bush having become President, there is no denying that. Hiding it in vague terms of honor and moral rectitude is a deeply cynical and inherently evil endeavor, and fools none but those who've never seen the real deal.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Red is for blood of patriots who have died to free us.
White is for justice and government of law.
Blue is for honor and faith in all we do.
This is my flag...this is Old Glory...the Red, White and Blue.
(http://www.oife.org/flagfr.gif)
?
-
Also, thanks Aldo for posting the French flag. I was about to do that myself :)
GOD BLESS FRANCE!
Originally posted by Liberator
The people who lead nations must be people of high honor and integrity, not two-faced dishonorable scum not worthy to share the same space with the likes of Washington, Lincoln or Kennedy.
Yup, my feeling too. That's why I can't vote for Bush :)
-
Pfff.
(http://www.earlham.edu/~ipo/england/fotos/gb.gif)
-
Gear! ;) :lol:
-
(http://edcourses.yourprivatespace.com/burthtml/cuba.flag.gif)
-
Red X. White Square........No blue.
-
I get it.
http://edcourses.yourprivatespace.com/burthtml/cuba.flag.gif
-
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Long live Yugoslavia
or alternately, Serbia :D :D Red, white and blue indeed
could't be bothered to go and look up a flag pic.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
-
Originally posted by an0n
Red X. White Square........No blue.
Uhh.... Which flag is that? The English flag is a red cross on white, the Scottish flag is a white x on blue, and Wales is a red dragon on white and green.
-
RNC attemtps to suppress anti-Bush adverts
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/07/moveon.ads/index.html
-
why have u banished liberator :(
i need my comedy relief
-
The GOP is just looking for trouble. The recent Bush+firefighter ads are stirring up a fair bit of contro
versy, 'cause Bush is depicted in the ads as hugging a firefighter (logical association; Ground Zero) while at the same time he has cut large amounts of money from Firefighter and First Respone programs nationwide.
And now this.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
BTW, I like this site (http://www.childrenloveamerica.org/index.html). Most of the works are from children, if they get it, why don't so many adults.This page especially (http://www.childrenloveamerica.org/pledge.html), you'll never, ever misunderstand the pledge ever again.
Oh look, it's the Nazi youth.
Originally posted by Rictor
The GOP is just looking for trouble. The recent Bush+firefighter ads are stirring up a fair bit of contro
versy, 'cause Bush is depicted in the ads as hugging a firefighter (logical association; Ground Zero) while at the same time he has cut large amounts of money from Firefighter and First Respone programs nationwide.
And now this.
Especially as some Sept 11 relatives (of the people in the towers & firefighters ) have criticised this.
-
I'm gonna puke.
Ugh... patriotism leaves such a bitter taste in the mouth.
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
I'm gonna puke.
Ugh... patriotism leaves such a bitter taste in the mouth.
It's not the patriotism.... it's all the references that you can only be a good citizen if you go to church.
It's saying - "Agree with the Presidents' beliefs to be good citizens. don't question, don't think, don't use your right to free speech."
But because they hide this amongst positive stuff like 'volunteer for charity work, be a nice person', etc, they can get away with me.
-
Can any American citizen explain this to me?
hehehe got to love these...
States -- individual communities that have united into 50 great states. Fifty individual communities
with pride and dignity and purpose, all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to common purpose,
and that's for love of country.
Indivisible -- incapable of being divided.
From http://www.childrenloveamerica.org/pledge.html :D
-
Its rhetoric man, what do you expect.
Many community groups are looking for volunteers, and some may not have occurred to you. Most of us know that churches, hospitals, and libraries use volunteers for a great deal of their work, but here are some volunteer opportunities that may not have crossed your mind:
Prisons
:wtf: :wtf:
-
Because it's propaganda designed to brainwash you means you aren't supposed to think while reading it.
-
Liberator, until you're one of us, I don't want you speaking for us military folk. Its offensive.
US soldiers and sailors are honorable and noble--if you look at us in the aggregate. Once you start looking at individuals, we're a pretty screwed up bunch. The cream of society doesn't join the military, you see. They're the ones in nice houses, in nice neighborhoods, with nice cars and nice jobs, sneering at us, the soldiers when we ask to get treated better, or get better pay, or get funding for anything other than guns and ammo. The vast majority of the military, at least in the enlisted ranks, is made up of people from poor black and hispanic neighborhoods.
Liberator, let me tell you a little story about US Soldiers and how 'honorable' we are. See, I was stationed, among other places, in Japan. Whilst I was there, three marines kidnapped, raped, and murdered a twelve year old girl. Whilst I was there, two sailors stabbed their wives to death. One airman drowned his child, intentionally, at the base pool. American servicemen stole cars from japanese parking lots and sold them to japanese chopshops. US sailors on one base beat two guys from the JMSDF (Japanese maritime self defense forcE) so badly that one ended up in a coma (he eventually recovered) and both were returned to civilian life on medical discharges. At the same air base, more than 120 sailors were put out of the navy and remanded to civilian authorities for making and selling crystal meth.
EVERYONE illegally sold food and clothing on the black market. See, food at the base commisary and clothing at the base exchange were sold at US prices. The japanese have to import the same stuff from the US and it gets taxed by the japanese government. We could sell a $50 pair of Levi's for $300 easy. Rice? Man we got 25lb bags of rice for $4.50. The japanese paid $55 for the same bag. Cigarettes and alcohol were likewise excellent items.
All of that happened in peace time, away from anything remotely like a danger zone. If we soldiers and sailors do that kind of **** in a friendly country, I don't think we'd hesitate to do far worse in a hostile land to anyone who got in the way.
I'm not saying all soldiers and sailors are animals, but enough of us have impulse control problems, that I have absolutley no doubt that, training or no, religion or no, laws or no, they'll do absolutely EVERYTHING described by Mr. Kerry. Combat, especially the kind of combat seen in Vietnam, does terrible things to a man's sense of self and sense of civilization.
Incidentally, I asked my father, a vietnam veteran who doesn't like to discuss his time there, if any of what Mr. Kerry said was true. Like Mr. Kerry, my father has a purple heart, only his has several stars on it. He just looked at me when I asked, and said alot of it was. He won't tell me which parts though. He's never been keen about talking about the stuff he saw in the jungle.
-
Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.
-George Bernard Shaw.
-
Even better one:
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country
- Hermann Goering
-
All soldiers, by definition, are retards.
I'm sorry, but it's just a simple fact. They're the people who can't get a real career so join the armed forces because they'll get tons of cash, travels the world and get to kill things.
These are the people who, if unchecked, either snap and go on a killing spree or are basically just football hooligans in a uniform and rape every Vietnamese villager in sight.
There are, however, some who join because they genuinely do have a sense of honour and want to make the world a better place.
These people die within the first 5 seconds of any combat. If life were a movie, these people would be the token black guy.
The only real hope of any army are the sycophants who're in it for the sense of order, power and focus that command of a unit/division/brigade/etc gives them.
These are the people who will burn an occupied orphanage to the ground if they're ordered to. The people who will do anything and everything within their power, ability and current operational scope to win the fight.
Because, while in an ideal world it would be nice to think every solider had the honour of a nun and the compassion of.....err....a nun and no matter how worthy the goal it would be unthinkable that it could possibly be worth ending a human life to achieve, in the real world the ends ALWAYS justify the means.
-
And 'patriotism' is the just a politically correct term for 'nationalism'.
-
you do know that mikhael up there was a soldier.
you have been paying atention right?
-
Yeah, what's your point?
-
no, point, just wanted to make sure you knew.
-
Unlike God, Bush and Martha Stewart; I know all, I see all.
-
Your cynicism appalls me an0n.
-
Your presence appalls me.
-
I was in the army also!!!1
Yeah, Finnish mandatory service. Served as a mech infantry AT-NCO :rolleyes:. Even being totally different place than US army, all armies are still essentially the same - they listen what politicians tell them, get there, blow some **** up and shoot the bad guys and want to leave as soon as possible. Great rhetorics over goals, accomplishments and ethics are all bull****.
As to what an0n said - I have to disagree. For what little knowledge I have of US army [which I try to gather as much as I can, because I have a huge raging hard-on for war techs], I am under impression that US Army gathers quite a lot of people who go there to do something completely different and to get cash for college or something else. Escapism ahoy!, since doing something like this still appeals all of us. Were it not that, we wouldn't play Freespace. Granted: some people want to shoot and play with guns with almost fetisist approach, but not all of them. Labeling is always somewhat repulsive to me; a heterogenic institution like an army should definately not be labelled due to units it is consisted of, but of principles it works on and actions it takes. That is almost anti-Liberator. Hurr.
The cold facts, however remain: military is a place which is about to kill people, but not one of cruelty and sadism. And to make this initally repulsive idea work, there must be someone who gives orders and someone who follows them. Honour and code of conduct may remain, but they must not interfere with the mission.
And Liberator; circumventing debate by such lame ways will not increase your credibility. :D
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Your cynicism appalls me an0n.
Shouldn't that be Vasdudan? Or is my memory playing tricks on me again.
And anon, don't flame. I don't give a **** if you think you are entitled to, you're not.
________
Following orders is not a valid excuse. If someone tells you to carry out an order which you know to be wrong, legally and morally, it is your duty to disobey. Soldiers choose to be there, on the battlefield. Civilians do not. So in my book, that makes the lives of the civies more valuable than the soldiers. How anyone can still throw around words like honour, duty and justice after mowing down village is beyond me.
What bothers me is how well, obvious, the truth is, and yet how steadfastly people ignore it. They want to ignore it, and go through great efforts to conivince themselves that soldiers are something other than killers.
And does anyone see something wrong with a world where Goering's stamement can be applied to our current time and current events and is found to be true, and no one gives a ****?
-
killers, defenders, it's all a matter of perspective.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Following orders is not a valid excuse. If someone tells you to carry out an order which you know to be wrong, legally and morally, it is your duty to disobey. Soldiers choose to be there, on the battlefield. Civilians do not. So in my book, that makes the lives of the civies more valuable than the soldiers. How anyone can still throw around words like honour, duty and justice after mowing down village is beyond me.
[/b]
Granted. Actually in every respectable army (I will now contradict myself and exclude some African ragbands from this definition... Oh ****, another contradiction.. :nervous: ) if soldier's given illegal, cruel or sadistic orders, he/she MUST refuse.
But under wartime situation weird things happen. People tend to forget ethics and morality, because the situation they're in is so goddamn ****ty. Anthony Glover tell is "Humanity" what happened in My Lai village, where ordinary guys and soldiers from USA turned into somekind of beasts, compulsory read.Or better; go to www.ogrish.com and do a net search of ofex.avi or something like that (warning: will ruin your life). If you strip your opponent of humanity and grace, which is very basics of warfare, you're just provoking cruelties to happen.
What bothers me is how well, obvious, the truth is, and yet how steadfastly people ignore it. They want to ignore it, and go through great efforts to conivince themselves that soldiers are something other than killers.
And does anyone see something wrong with a world where Goering's stamement can be applied to our current time and current events and is found to be true, and no one gives a ****?
Well, no. :D Because it's always been true. It's just that Hermann Göring, a notorious fat NSDAP [nazi] boss saying it gives it a much creepier tone than some random leftist/rightwing populist/angsty emo blurting it out in your local newspaper's sunday part.
Edit: vB code, once again.
-
Well actually, even defenders are killers. But I would be much, much more tolerant and respectful of US soldiers if the majority, or even a portion, of the conflicts in which the fought over the past 50 years had anything to do with defending America. But, as you know....
When was the last time America had foreign troops on it land? The War of 1812 or something like that? And you think its perfectly acceptable to have bases in 130 foreign nations despite the fact that you would never, ever allow one of your soil. Hmm....
-
Realpolitik ahoy.
-
as I said a matter of perspective
"When was the last time America had foreign troops on it land"
oh, 9-11 man :D
c'mon, you didn't see that comdeing?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
as I said a matter of perspective
"When was the last time America had foreign troops on it land"
oh, 9-11 man :D
c'mon, you didn't see that comdeing?
I thought terrorists were independednt of state..... because 15 of the 19 terrorists inbvolved in 9/11 were Saudi Arabian, after all.
And besides which, terrorists are not troops - otherwise they wouldn't be declared non-combatants and chucked in Guantanamo Bay with no regards to the Geneva convention, would they?
-
Terrorist arent troops bobboau, besides the identity of the terrorists has never been conclusivly proven:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
They could have been US citizens for all we know.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And anon, don't flame. I don't give a **** if you think you are entitled to, you're not.
:wtf:
Saying "The quality of your mothers blow-jobs appalls me" would've been a flame.
"Your presence appalls me" is just a mere statement of fact.
And for the record; I am.
-
Janos that site is a bit sick dontya think.
-
Gank,
yeah it must just nother of them Zionist plots, you know they controle the media, and the government.
-
I thought that was the Free Masons?
-
Originally posted by Gank
Janos that site is a bit sick dontya think.
o rly :nod:
But did you watch the video?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Shouldn't that be Vasdudan? Or is my memory playing tricks on me again.
And anon, don't flame. I don't give a **** if you think you are entitled to, you're not.
Actually the line is:
Your cynicism appalls me Colossus. :)
-
You scare me sometimes, you really do.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Gank,
yeah it must just nother of them Zionist plots, you know they controle the media, and the government.
Who mentioned the Zionists. Grow up.
For somebody who obviously takes the 9/11 attacks seriously, you dont seem too phased by the fact that at least some of the people who are getting blamed for it didnt do it. Arent you in the least bit interested as to who might of, or do you not care as long as somebody gets bombed for it?
Janus, no I took a look at the site and closed the page, while I think people should be made aware of the brutalitys of war etc, I'm not going to look through a site that seems to celebrate it.
-
Janos, couldn't find it. How about a direct link. I'm not one for these types of websites, but if its relevant I'll bite the bullet. I've seen some pretty bad pics (real) of the effects of bombing on say, peoples heads, so I should be ok.
-
bombing on peoples heads?
I wouldn't think there would be much left to see
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
bombing on peoples heads?
I wouldn't think there would be much left to see
I think one of the main ways bombs kill outside the blast radius is the concussion blast....i.e. pulverising the internal organs, but leaving the outside skin relatively intact (cos it's more pliable). Nasty.
-
ah, I misread that,
the effects of bombing, on there heads,
not the effects of, bombing on there heads
-
Originally posted by Gank
For somebody who obviously takes the 9/11 attacks seriously, you dont seem too phased by the fact that at least some of the people who are getting blamed for it didnt do it.
That article you link to is two and a half years old and the list therein is antiquated and obsolete. Check the FBI's site for yourself. Not that it would matter that some were US citizens anyway.
-
Well, when the bombing occurs in an urban area, you get all sorts of debris, cave-ins, buildings collapsing and so forth. I've got them on a disk somewhere, but that somewhere is probably in storage so...
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
That article you link to is two and a half years old and the list therein is antiquated and obsolete. Check the FBI's site for yourself.
Check their website for what exactly? The only list I could find on the fbi site was here:
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa11/11.htm
Same guys as on the BBC's article. They're still getting the blame for it so the article is not "antiquated and obsolete"
Not that it would matter that some were US citizens anyway.
Bobboau was calling them foriegn troops, so if they were US citizens it would have mattered. Please try to read whats said properly.
-
so then they'd be infiltrators, there still comeing here to kill, all that matters after that is your semantical game of weather or not they are troops simply becase there not working expressly for a single government
-
If you look at that FBI link you'll see that was part of a press release made absolutely ages ago. If the FBI were still hunting these men then why does not one of them appear on the wanted list? o_O I haven't found any names from either of those four flights in the present literature.
-
Eh Bobboau, they wouldnt be foreign though would they?
SadisticSid, it doesnt matter when the press release was made, they are still getting the blame for doing it. I cant find any other press release on the site naming different people. And why exactly would the FBI be hunting them when it says they commited suicide by flying planes into buildings. Duh. Please supply some links to this present literature if you can, I'm interested to see what source your using, and why you consider it more up to date than the FBI.
-
Are you familiar with treason? It's quite possible for American citizens to fight for a foreign power, whether that be a state or a terrorist organization. Has happened a few times in the past, though not terribly many- most traitors in the US had more to do with spying than outright combat.
-
True, and if they were fighting for a foreign state or terrorists then I suppose they could be considered foreign troops, but the fact remains that it isnt known for 100% certainty who the hijackers were or who they worked for. FBI website says it itself on the most wanted terrorist page: http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm
-
It hardly matters anyway. We know what organization was responsible, and the individuals are dead.
Though I was fairly certain they'd unearthed some kind of clear evidence that those specific guys had been planning it ahead of time.
-
Well Al-Queda say they didnt do it, which is a bit strange, one would think they'd be quite happy to take credit for such a blow against symbols of freedom and democracy, which they hate so much. Kinda strange too that the hijackers would hide their identitys, when they believed they were doing Gods work and would go straight to heaven and collect 77 virgins for their actions.
As for evidence it was premeditated, arabic flight training manuals, a copy of the Koran, pilot uniforms and even names of the other suspects were found. Mohammed Attas passport miraculously survived the first plane crash, and copys of his 4 page suicide note was found at the site of the Pennsylvania crash. 2 other copys were found. Abdulaziz Al-Omari and Mohammed Atta were caught on security cameras twice in Portland on their way to Boston. Despite the fact that Al-Omari was in Saudi at the time.
-
:wtf:
Al-Qaeda did take credit for it, dude. You never watched bin Laden's speech?
And I'd like to see some sort of support for your latter claims. They sound terribly like something that came from the tinfoil hat crowd.
-
Meh, I should have typed said instead of say up there, 5am here. Bin Laden denied it four times before a video of him claiming credit appeared. Since then hes claimed credit a couple of times. If it was him why deny it in the first place.
As for me not knowing much about it, my old neighbour died in the attack and if I had said ****it and accepted the offer of a job in ny 3 years ago theres a strong possibility I would have died with him. So I have a slight interest in the attack.
-
6 minutes between double posts. a new record
-
Dunno how that happened, both appeared at the same time.
-
No. No they didn't.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
And I'd like to see some sort of support for your latter claims. They sound terribly like something that came from the tinfoil hat crowd.
Which claims?
Suicide notes:
http://www.latimes.com/la-092801atta.story
passport:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_MAIN010912.html
Some reports say its Satam Al Suqami's passport, some say it was Atta's.
Al-Omari on camera:
http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/1004_hijackers_ap.html
Al-Omari still alive
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
Anything else?
-
For me I meant
-
as I was saying, Zionist plot.
-
Actually Bob, I don't see why you have to instantly discount things because they require a tiny degree of skepticism to believe. At the very least, you ought to listen, and then afterwards use your own common sense to guage the validity of the claims. Its that, or believe every single word that comes out of the White House/Pentagon/CIA/NSA/DOD/FBI (you get the point, the goverment) 's mouth.
And Zionist lobby groups are very, very influential in Washington. Its no conspiracy, since no attempt is made to hide this fact.
-
Well whether zionists did it or not, and theres no real evidence to say they did, Mossad apparenty knew about it in advance:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=75266&sw=mockery%20
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.03.15/news2.html
Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."
Also interesting but possibly unrelated is the first paragraph here:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=06032002-121706-8744r