Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on November 12, 2004, 05:33:27 pm
-
front page of http://www.democrats08.com/
and here is the video http://www.democrats08.com/media/tanks-on-la-streets.mov
of course certain indidivuals on this forum who i already talk to object to the authenticity of this video for such various bull**** reasons as
"we haven't heard about it in the national news!" (irrelevent),
"that's too high quality for a home video!" (bull****),
"look at that jump!" (ever heard of having turned the camera off and put it up only to have to get it out again)
-
Oh my! Tanks going down the streets! What could possibly be worse? Oh I know, the tanks actually opening fire on the crowd!
Honestly, who gives a ****?
-
Interesting. Probably coincidence... ?
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Oh my! Tanks going down the streets! What could possibly be worse? Oh I know, the tanks actually opening fire on the crowd!
Honestly, who gives a ****?
Tin, I don't know where you live but if I had tanks rolling down my high street I'd be a bit put off...
-
Its California. If the tanks roll down the street (and only two I might add) but dont really take any action on the crowd but to pass it up, then fine. We have military bases in California. Also:
I think we were more sophisticated than that, realizing that many soldiers are victims themselves who were recruited through propaganda, guile, and economic incentives that the very poor can find it difficult to refuse.
Only on a democratic site....
-
Demonstrators immediately stepped in front of the lead tank, blocking its path...
Only deluded idiots step into the path of a moving tank.
(http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/18_tankstoppedbydemonstrators2.jpg)
Also, those aren't tanks. They look like a relative of a Bradley, it's on wheels for crying out loud.
Kazan, this is getting old. You intimated that the government was using tanks to oppress citizens. When it's the other way around, the protestors were on the verge of riot(granted there was only 400 of them) and were the one's that were acting as the agressor.
Please quit acting like a brat who hasn't gotten his way.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Kazan, this is getting old. You intimated that the government was using tanks to oppress citizens. When it's the other way around, the protestors were on the verge of riot(granted there was only 400 of them) and were the one's that were acting as the agressor.
Dude, its tanks. Tanks in the streets. If this doesn't bring to mind the phrase "police state", there's something wrong.
You think that protestors should just stand in place, hold one sign (and in a non-threating manner) and keep their voice down? No, they're protestors. Also, "on the verge of a riot" is very, very subjective. You can't arrest someone on the suspicion that they might riot, until actual violence is perpatrated, protestors have a right to free speech and free assembly.
Originally posted by Liberator
Only deluded idiots step into the path of a moving tank.
Really? What, like Tianamen Square?
I would say that only an idiot points a tank are civilians. The tank had to right to be there, the people did.
-
I'm with Lib in that that doesn't look like a tank. Resembles a troop carrier.
Personally, I think those protestors were idiots.
-
Roger That.
Rictor, did the tank open fire on the civilians? Or for that matter, interfere in any way besides driving past? No. They ecompassed it, and the drivers had to wait for someone to get the civie's out of the way.
-
doesn't matter what you think of them, they were well within their rights to be there. I too think they were acting like idiots, but that doesn't mean you can start putting tanks on the street.
-
Sounds like you think the vehicles were sent there for the sole purpose of dispersing the protestors. I saw nothing of the sort, just a couple of military guys driving down a highway. It's not like driving is violating their rights either...
-
The way it seemed to me is that they weren't just driving down the highway.
If that was the case, I take back what I said.
-
quoted from the Democrats08 site:
About 7:30pm, two tanks barreled past going East on Wilshire, rounded the corner onto Veteran going South, and disappeared.
About ten or fifteen minutes later, two tanks (apparently the same ones) appeared again going East on Wilshire and stopped for the light there. Demonstrators immediately stepped in front of the lead tank, blocking its path, and started to chant "U.S. Out!" at the soldiers, whose heads and torsos were clearly visible and who evidently exchanged a few words with protestors.
Doesn't sound like they were doing anything 'cept driving by...
-
And of course we all know that people in LA never riot....
They have a right of assembly.
THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO BANG PASSING CARS WITH PROTEST SIGNS.
The video show this.
Third point, ITS LA.
However, it is immature of pilot of the tanks to purposefully go around the block and intimmidate the protesters. The protesters also should not be acting like morons. What person with the minimum IQ of a rudebega would step infront of an tank.
-
from what I've gathered, the offical explaination is that they were returning from an exercise somewere and when they came through this street people jumped in front of them and they couldn't move for a few minutes.
however, it is also reported that the circled the blockonce or twice before this incedent.
and those are LAV-25s, not a tank, but close enough.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Dude, its tanks. Tanks in the streets. If this doesn't bring to mind the phrase "police state", there's something wrong.
You think that protestors should just stand in place, hold one sign (and in a non-threating manner) and keep their voice down? No, they're protestors. Also, "on the verge of a riot" is very, very subjective. You can't arrest someone on the suspicion that they might riot, until actual violence is perpatrated, protestors have a right to free speech and free assembly.
I'm not sure what the situation is over the pond but we have military bases dotted all over the UK and military vehicles - APCs and tanks, as well as countless transport trucks use the roads all the time. I doubt this is any less innocent.
The protestors were fully within their rights to be there though, and personally I think their goals are justified given the wretched mess the US has made of itself in Iraq and Fallujah, but screaming about it in the street doesn't advance their cause one iota
-
tank=anything big, metal and intimidating with a turret and/or machine-guns.
redmenace: Well, lets see. Aside from the fact that the cause was completely different, the people completely different, the race of the people for the most part completely different and the decade completely different, I'de say you're right on.
They should just not allow protests in LA anymore, since people are so violent there, and prone to rioting. Better make that all of California, and New York too, I hear they once had a riot in the 30s. Hell, just make it all of America, better safe than sorry.
-
I live very near one of the biggest militay bases in the nation, I almost never see any military vehicles (aside from aircraft wich practicly block out the sun with there numbers) and never an armored vehicle of any kind, but it is an air force base.
-
Wretched mess in Fallujah?
Virtually the whole city has been taken with 25 confirmed fatal casualties for the Coalition Forces and over 1200 confirmed dead terrorists in a period of less that 72 hours.
They found where they were doing those awful beheadings. They found a "torture house" by following tips from confirmed civvies in the combat zone and then they located it by following the screams once they got close. The only problem there has been in Fallujah is that they got halted by the damned politicians the first time. There are few problems in Fallujah now, it's not a mess.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
tank=anything big, metal and intimidating with a turret and/or machine-guns.
redmenace: Well, lets see. Aside from the fact that the cause was completely different, the people completely different, the race of the people for the most part completely different and the decade completely different, I'de say you're right on.
They should just not allow protests in LA anymore, since people are so violent there, and prone to rioting. Better make that all of California, and New York too, I hear they once had a riot in the 30s. Hell, just make it all of America, better safe than sorry.
Wonderful job putting ****ing words in my mouth, bastard.
People should have an absolute to protest. BUT ****ING DISORDERLY CONDUCT IS NOT PROTESTING. You should learn to listen before you open your big mouth. However, your right this is a completly different issue, race, people ect. But the point still stands. LA has a riotest past. I probably wouldn't have stopped if I were the pilot.
-
Lib, how many civvies were killed in Fallujah?
-
Remember, they took the hospital first hence, no one knows.
But everyone who is killed by the US becomes a terrorist, no civilians are ever harmed. If they're dead, clearly that means they should be dead.
redmenace: protests almost by definition involve disorderly conduct. If its easy to ignore, its not effective. Did you honestly fear for the saftey of the guys in the armoured APC?? Also, you can't say that "LA has a riotous past" because none of the same people were involved. They might as well have been from Texas, because people don't all act the same way just because they live in the same city and you know that as well as I do.
-
Unless it's EMERALD CITY!
Ha ha ha! Ho ho ho!
and a couple of hee hee haws!
That's how we laugh the day away
in the merry old land of Oz!
-
So, Tin and Lib wouldn't mind it if they were out advocating the nuking of Iraq, in force with a group of people, and two tanks rolled by and told them to **** off and go home. Say, in the middle of Houston.
:wtf:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The only problem there has been in Fallujah is that they got halted by the damned politicians the first time. There are few problems in Fallujah now, it's not a mess.
Yes, too many blunders have been made by politicans who took over the jobs and made decisions that actual soldiers should have been making. Unfortunately, I would bet there have been incidents like that throughout history.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
tank=anything big, metal and intimidating with a turret and/or machine-guns.
Actually there are some big differences between main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, and the like. Their names alone should convey some sense of difference in their assigned roles, firepower, chassis, and weight alone.
I am not certain if the Bradley is technically designated a Tank though...anyone know? The ones used to fight at Waco, Texas were called "Bradley Fighting Vehicles."
-
They call them fighting vehicles, but I'd call them light tanks, personally.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Wretched mess in Fallujah?
Virtually the whole city has been taken with 25 confirmed fatal casualties for the Coalition Forces and over 1200 confirmed dead terrorists in a period of less that 72 hours.
They found where they were doing those awful beheadings. They found a "torture house" by following tips from confirmed civvies in the combat zone and then they located it by following the screams once they got close. The only problem there has been in Fallujah is that they got halted by the damned politicians the first time. There are few problems in Fallujah now, it's not a mess.
If the US had occupied the country properly in the first place without their aggressive, iron-fisted protocols there wouldn't have been any need to slaughter their way through the city. Remember the scenes in Iraq when they toppled the statue of Saddam a year ago and contrast it to what we have now, virtually everywhere the soldiers are still present and you see the effect that this occupation has had. Of course the war was based on a false premise anyway so this sucks any way you put it.
-
uh, the toppling of Saddam's statue was staged you know. There was like 300 people there, brought along by the US forces, and the rest of the square was empty. There are some wider shots taken by another press agency, and they show a much better picture (as in more realistic).
But I agree with your other sentiments.
-
Not that it really matters. They seemed to enjoy beating it with shoes anyway...
-
Originally posted by Rictor
redmenace: protests almost by definition involve disorderly conduct. If its easy to ignore, its not effective. Did you honestly fear for the saftey of the guys in the armoured APC?? Also, you can't say that "LA has a riotous past" because none of the same people were involved. They might as well have been from Texas, because people don't all act the same way just because they live in the same city and you know that as well as I do. [/B]
I have been to many peaceful protests my self.
As for LA past. The area of LA has demonstrated in the past problems with riots. This could be related to several issues. The people that live there, the police, the civil government. Also the war is a dicisivly divisive issue just as "racism" in the 90s and the 60s were in the city. This could also be strictly related to the fact that LA is an urban area. However, I will say that protesters have been known to pick fights, IE. the IMF protests in DC, especially when protesters spat on military grunts on the streets(not doing anything to the protesters) and complained when they got floored. Or when they soked handkerchifs in urin to simulate tear gas symtoms.
However, civil disobedience is a tool. However, people should not complain when the civil gov't responds.
Also I read that they went around the block a couple of times. did they make that specific right turn a couple of times? or go around? Did the APC need to make that turn? They also edited out or had the camera off for a portion of it, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED?
Originally posted by Liberator
Wretched mess in Fallujah?
Virtually the whole city has been taken with 25 confirmed fatal casualties for the Coalition Forces and over 1200 confirmed dead terrorists in a period of less that 72 hours.
They found where they were doing those awful beheadings. They found a "torture house" by following tips from confirmed civvies in the combat zone and then they located it by following the screams once they got close. The only problem there has been in Fallujah is that they got halted by the damned politicians the first time. There are few problems in Fallujah now, it's not a mess.
Don't forget that "freedom fighter" or insurgents or whatever name you want to use, are using mosk(I am sorry for the spelling) towers as sniper positions, using mosks, schools and hospitals(I think) as ammo dumps. As well as using mosks as fighting positions. They also have been using white flags to lure soldiers only to open fire on them.
-
its normal to turn of the camera to put it down or something, and then turn it back on later.
I too have been to several peaceful protests, but sitting there like schoolboys isn't really in your face, which is one of the goals of a protest.
-
You have the right to protest-----ONLY IF IT DOESNT PUT SOMEONE ELSE IN DANGER
You can yell and holler all you want, just as long as it doesnt put people at risk. All I see are a bunch of angry hippies...
I dont think those civillians should be yelling at those poor servicemen. They were given orders to do whatever they are doing. Soldiers risk their lives for us, they shouldnt be YELLED at for doing so. Its kind of like those Veitnam veterans, so many people were unnappreciative of them.
-
Don't take this the wrong way. BUT, don't be suprised when the civil gov't or those that the protesters annoy or get in their faces respond, sometimes with violence. Then react like the peasants from monty python and the holy grail saying "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
-
Who were they putting in danger MatthewPapa? What, the people in the 25 ton armoured vehicle?
They didn't try to climb the tank, they did do anything except yell.
And I don't think soldiers deserve respect by definition. If they have done something brave or outstanding, sure, but that goes for all people. America hasn't waged a defensive war in centuries, I'm not going to respect someone for being an agressor.
-
"Wars not make one great." -Yoda
Gotta love Star Wars wisdom.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And I don't think soldiers deserve respect by definition. If they have done something brave or outstanding, sure, but that goes for all people.
But in the modern all-voluntary military, the very fact the they have chosen of their own free will to place themselves in harm's way makes them deserving of respect.
America hasn't waged a defensive war in centuries, I'm not going to respect someone for being an agressor.
I don't get it Rictor, you all but ask for the USA to police the world and then berate us when we try and do it. If we do nothing we get berated again. How do we win exactly in your little game, Rictor?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
But in the modern all-voluntary military, the very fact the they have chosen of their own free will to place themselves in harm's way makes them deserving of respect.
Yes, but putting yourself in harms way for a cause that is unjust is not admirable. I can choose to step in front of a car, but that doesn't make me a hero. Actions that are undertaken in pursuit of a valid and moral goal, yes, but not just any dangerous action.
Originally posted by Liberator
I don't get it Rictor, you all but ask for the USA to police the world and then berate us when we try and do it. If we do nothing we get berated again. How do we win exactly in your little Rictor?
Woah, hold on. I ask the US to poliice the world? Thats preciesly what I *don't* want them to do. I think you are under some misconceptions as to exactly what the world thinks of the US. I don't know very many people who want you to be the world's police force, since that power has been abused time and time again in the past.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I don't get it Rictor, you all but ask for the USA to police the world and then berate us when we try and do it. If we do nothing we get berated again. How do we win exactly in your little Rictor?
EXACTLY. If you want isolationism, then don't complain and cry for Uncle Sam to do something when Israelis and Palestineans kill each other. Let the followers of the Milosevic school of thought force their citizens to relentless tortures all over the world. I'm sure you were one of the many that was angered by Hussein's gassing of his own people after Desert Storm. Did you think that we had no right to be there either? did Micheal Moore tell you that Desert Storm was only for oil as well?
-
1. The gassing of the Kurds (who incidently were Saddam's enemies, not his own people) took place in 1988, 3 years before Desert Storm, and well before the US stopped supporting Saddam.
2. I don't complain to Uncle Sam when foreigners kill each other, only when the US is directly or indirectly the reason for those killings.
3. Please stop talking out of your ass, and try to come up with something better than "You filthy terrosist appeaser, go kiss Saddam's boots along with Michael Moore!!!!"
-
You know what I think about the tanks?
(http://home.comcast.net/~andrewduk/ownedtank.jpg)
:p
-
I think it's fair to say that Liberator can be ignored.
And I've seen entire convoys of trucks, APC's, tanks and choppers go rolling/buzzing by before. It's no big deal. Tanks and **** need a way to move around too, so why the **** should they have to go through 50miles of marshland just to avoid rolling through an urban area?
-
cause...RPGs in alley-ways.
oh, you mean in America.
-
The UK actually, but the point still stands.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
You know what I think about the tanks?
(http://home.comcast.net/~andrewduk/ownedtank.jpg)
:p
nice. very nice. :p
-
Originally posted by Rictor
1. The gassing of the Kurds (who incidently were Saddam's enemies, not his own people) took place in 1988, 3 years before Desert Storm, and well before the US stopped supporting Saddam.
2. I don't complain to Uncle Sam when foreigners kill each other, only when the US is directly or indirectly the reason for those killings.
3. Please stop talking out of your ass, and try to come up with something better than "You filthy terrosist appeaser, go kiss Saddam's boots along with Michael Moore!!!!"
1. You are right, my mistake, he did gas the Kurds in '88. However, after Desert Storm, he did massacre the Kurds with his retreating army. He continually exterminated non-Sunni Muslim religious groups, and did all of this with no concept of atrocity. His injustices aren't limited to gassing, and besides, what difference does it make if it was before or after Desert Storm (besides my incorrect assumption)? He still did the atrocity, the point still stands.
2. How do you define indirect? is refusing to help an attacked group 'indirectly the reason for the killings?' (ie the Kurds thing above)
3. Please be more original, and don't be so quick to flame. talking out of my ass? Please. Nowhere did i say anything about appeasing terrorists. I know it's standard operating procedure to label anyone with a conservative argument as an agenda-hungry moron, but maybe you should look deeper before you fling accusations.
-
Originally posted by Cniinc
3. Please be more original, and don't be so quick to flame. talking out of my ass? Please. Nowhere did i say anything about appeasing terrorists. I know it's standard operating procedure to label anyone with a conservative argument as an agenda-hungry moron, but maybe you should look deeper before you fling accusations.
That works both ways these days. :(
-
Originally posted by Rictor
cause...RPGs in alley-ways.
oh, you mean in America.
:lol:
Originally posted by an0n
The UK actually, but the point still stands.
no, rictor's right. it was in the US. LA's Westwood. After all, it was the LAPD that shooed them out according to the article.
Oh, and just a side note, did you notice that the poster of the article called himself 'ich bin ein un fallujan?" pretty clever. I almost expected him to put in the 'ask-not-what-your-country-can-do-for-you' quote somewhere in there.
-
I see LAVs, just like that one, on the highway here in San Diego quite often. It's not really unusual. I've seen them driving around downtown too, on occasion. In pairs...just like that. The Marines send them to some types of community events, like fairs and stuff, just like the police will have some guys, a few cars, and a booth.
They show up by accident at a protest and people think the world's $#^&ing ending.
-
the name of the road they were on is veteran ave, this makes me think that it's near a base of some sort, meaning that the chances of an accedental meating are better
-
Originally posted by Cniinc
no, rictor's right. it was in the US. LA's Westwood. After all, it was the LAPD that shooed them out according to the article.
:blah:
Go back to France, hippy!
-
Actually, we go more for mines in the UK, RPG's stand out, and theres always a pylon or telegraph pole or something in the way.... :(
Anon's right, a vehicles gotta move.
I suppose we have to look at this cold bloodedly really, why do American, and British and other Western soldiers fight? Is it for love of country? Is it to protect friends and family, or is it because it's a good wage, with and excellent health and retirement plan.
I mean no disrespect to America's army, since ours is identical, but the long and the short of it is that a large percentage of these armies are defined as 'mercenaries'. They fight for money. I think that before 9/11 many of them never really expected to see serious combat. That is why many of them are freezing or hesitating,
During WW2, the soldiers knew, particuarly European ones, that for every day the War continued, their freinds and family were dying in air-raids back home. Those days they were really fighting to survive, not to dominate. Terrorism is the US's phantom blitz, but the glamour is wearing off. And the cracks will start to show as the country polarises. :(
-
Well, if you've seen the military pay scale it's not what I'd call "mouth watering". Plus I'd trust the defense of the country to the soldiers we have now long before I'd trust a "trained" contractor. The big difference between the two is more often than not one fights out of patriotism, the other is in it for the big payoff. The former group would likely do it even without pay, I sincerely hope. The latter are the true mercenaries.
-
Originally posted by Vanguard
Well, if you've seen the military pay scale it's not what I'd call "mouth watering".
Compared to other 'unskilled' jobs, like working in a supermarket, as a builder, etc, though?
-
[q]How do you define indirect? [/q]
Actions carried out via mechanisms like the world bank and imf?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Wretched mess in Fallujah?
Virtually the whole city has been taken with 25 confirmed fatal casualties for the Coalition Forces and over 1200 confirmed dead terrorists in a period of less that 72 hours.
You really need to learn how geurilla wars are fought.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
What person with the minimum IQ of a rudebega would step infront of an tank.
A chinese guy that everybody now sees as some kind of hero, for exemple? You know, that guy:
(http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/multimedia/pictures/asia/china/gif/tank.gif)
-
Well, if you've seen the military pay scale it's not what I'd call "mouth watering". Plus I'd trust the defense of the country to the soldiers we have now long before I'd trust a "trained" contractor. The big difference between the two is more often than not one fights out of patriotism, the other is in it for the big payoff. The former group would likely do it even without pay, I sincerely hope. The latter are the true mercenaries.
The ranks of the military are filled with people who don't have a pot to piss in, and have absolutely no hope of a post-secondary education because of their financial situations. The military is the only way they can earn the money.
Wars are fueled by poverty and testosterone.
-
Originally posted by an0n
:blah:
Go back to France, hippy!
what are you talking about? where'd that come from? read my previous posts, and you'll see i wasn't for the protest, thank you.
WWII wasn't fought for poverty. It wasn't really for testosterone. It was to destroy a tyrant and stop him from controlling Europe. Ironically, though, the war with Japan was initially fought for oil. Funny how those things work out, itn't it? Wars with good causes can have 'oil' as a cause in it somewhere.
-
Ah, World War II....
Makes me want to watch Band of Brothers again...
-
Originally posted by Cniinc
what are you talking about? where'd that come from? read my previous posts, and you'll see i wasn't for the protest, thank you.
WWII wasn't fought for poverty. It wasn't really for testosterone. It was to destroy a tyrant and stop him from controlling Europe. Ironically, though, the war with Japan was initially fought for oil. Funny how those things work out, itn't it? Wars with good causes can have 'oil' as a cause in it somewhere.
1930's Germany, Italy, and Japan might disagree.
-
Originally posted by Vanguard
1930's Germany, Italy, and Japan might disagree.
True, and Saddam might disagree that he's a tyrant, but that doesn't change much, does it?
-
Saddam didn't fight for any good causes, or to liberate people. Duh. :rolleyes:
-
Sure he did, at least according to the official state version of the story.
Which is exactly what the official US version of the story says, that the fight all wars not out of agression or greed but for moral causes.
Every government does it, remember that in war truth is the first casualty.
Though its funny how Saddam's worst crimes (far worse than gassing the Kurds or invading Kuwait) are not even known, much less condemned by the American people, namely the war with Iran during which several hundred thousand Iranians died and where Saddam did in fact use chemical weapons. But no one condems it because at the time Saddam was a close ally, and was backed by the US, who also played no small part in the decision to invade Iran.
-
Rictor cant let it go can he?
"Yeah, well US helped Sadaam TOO! Nah nah nah naaaaah nah!"
-
Tin, you're really beginning to piss me off.
You don't like what he's saying because you're either too stupid to understand it or too terrified to accept it so you stoop down to making it sound like he's trying to be akward.
-
I know it true, but I've already heard it only one thousand times!
If it hasn't been from Kaz, it's from him or someone else who can't stand keeping it in. They always got to throw the same damn argument on the table. I haven't denied it's true, but I'm sure everyone on the board is already educated enough to know we were once buddied with Sadaam. Got it?
-
If people are making arguments that someone can counter by discussing that relationship with Saddam, why shouldn't they?
Just because you don't like hearing about it doesn't make it any less a valid point.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I know it true, but I've already heard it only one thousand times!
If it hasn't been from Kaz, it's from him or someone else who can't stand keeping it in. They always got to throw the same damn argument on the table. I haven't denied it's true, but I'm sure everyone on the board is already educated enough to know we were once buddied with Sadaam. Got it?
Then will you accept that the argument of going to war to remove Saddam is at best hypocritical and at worst a complete lie? Because that's the counterpoint - how can you 'liberate' a people when you held a hand in their oppression in the first place? If we invaded to punish Saddam, should we not also punish ourselves for supporting him, and for any damage which we may / will / have done in Iraq and during the 1st Gulf War?
-
Bush can't change the fact that America, in its past, helped Sadaam out. Is Bush at fault? No. Can we change it? No. Can we be reminded we did it? Yes. Constantly? Yes. Is it needed? No. It's not necessary if we all (and I mean all) already know about it.
-
anyone have a problem with us corecting an error we were resposable for?
-
If you spill tomato juice on your shirt, you have a stain on it. Even if you give the shirt to someone else to wear, people will still see the shirt with the big ass tomato stain on it and laugh. Doesn't matter that the guy who is now wearing it didn't spill the tomato juice on his shirt, he's still wearing the stain.
It's not about correcting an error so much as changing our mind on what benefits us to the greater degree.
-
[q]anyone have a problem with us corecting an error we were resposable for?[/q]
You blew that chance at the elections...
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Bush can't change the fact that America, in its past, helped Sadaam out. Is Bush at fault? No. Can we change it? No. Can we be reminded we did it? Yes. Constantly? Yes. Is it needed? No.
Yes. It's absolutely and completely necessary - those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
-
(http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg)
Thats the current secretary for defense on the left.
-
yup, that it is
I could probly get similar pictures of just about anyone you wanted
...or at the least make them
-
Hell, there's a video of Rumsfeld hugging Saddam somewhere - you'd have to be a complete blinding idiot not to realise the previous administation was a big fan of good ole' Saddam - or that quite a lot of said fans are now back in power.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
yup, that it is
I could probly get similar pictures of just about anyone you wanted
...or at the least make them
It does make a mockery of Tin Can's comment that just cause Bush wasn't involved we should forget about it though doesn't it? While Bush himself might not have been involved members of his currently serving cabinet were.
If the current secretary for defence could get it so wrong in the past who's to say that some of the people he supports now won't turn out to be similarly bad choices when we look back 10-15 years later?
-
everything we do can be a bad choice 10-15 years later (let's not even bring in such controversies as affirmative action), but that doesn't mean that we should be indecisive and standby when people like Saddam are in power.
-
You guys will stop at nothing to bash Bush. If anything is wrong with America it has always got to be Bush. Geez, give it a rest. Kaz should have never started this thread....
-
why, can't you put forth a decent defence?
-
Why can't anyone spell defense.... :p
-
For gods sakes its the same thing every damn thread. Just give it a rest you guys.
-
That so called "tank" is a LAV-25 (I think I got the model right). I'm not an expert on tanks but the LAV-25 is meant to be an amphibious vehicle. Its more of an armored truck than a tank...I believe its on wheels and not treads. Its a trumped up SWAT van compaired to what I had originally imagined when they said tanks.
I can understand the people down there that feel that there should be a less controversial president in-office but this doesn't help their case in my view. It hinders it.
It sounds like the protesters were more of a threat and were more threatening to the "tank" than the amored vehicle was to them. Two sides to every story...
-
Ok, now I am really annoyed.
STOP, EUROPE ESCPECIALLY, criticizing the election. You want to act like you art the pinnacle of a civilized society. :ha:
You are the ones that think your self superior. Not us.
-
Well plenty of Americans pissed on the Spanish for their election results in March.
I think we Americans have a thick enough skin to take some of their bickering in return. Unless you're insinuating we Americans are all pompous wussies that can't take the usual rhetoric in stride. If we can't hold up to that how the hell are we gonna win a friggin' war in Iraq? Throwing a tizzy fit and crying our eyes out about them voicing their opinions isn't much better.
I'll add that it's even more irrelevant since they can't change anything (over here).
-
I never really cared for, nor anyone I know, the elections of the Spanish. If they think they know what's best, let them go at it. I'm not here to judge.
Anyhow, the results for this years election were the highest votes ever. Roughly 40% of the country voted. The other 60%, lets say, are comprised of these people:
40% children (under 18, unable to vote)
15% non-voters
5% unable to vote (lives in a crazy house or something. A real lu-lu)
This means that out of the 55% of the population able to vote, 40% voted on their president, and John Kerry just didnt have what it took to pull it off. Now that roughly 22% of the country voted for Bush, guess what every Democrat and Liberal does in the media?
Calls them stupid.
That's right, we're all just a bunch of stupid dumb****s with no idea what we are doing in this country. Guess what it's ALL about to the Dem's and Lib's in this country?
Issues over Morals
What do Republicans and Conservatives vote for?
Morals over Issues
It's what keeps the society from turning secular at every turn. Sure, its OK to allow gay marriages, its OK to perform stem cell research, its OK to have an abortion. It's all issues, issues, issues, and Democrats and Liberals cant seem to understand why we value morals over issues.
Because the line is drawn between right and wrong. When you go over that line, it's too far. All 11 states that had the "should gay marriages be ok?" question all voted NO by over (in all states) 65%. Some it was 80%. Some it was 66%. But the fact is, we dont want it. So, dont try and press it on us.
The bottom line is, we the Left value our traditions and our standards more than we value the "freedom" and "feelings" hippy nonsense trying to get passed. What's their slogan?
If it feels good, do it!
No, you dont.
-
...what?:wtf:
-
The condescension between parties these days is inane to say the least. Some Dems did seem childishly petty following the election too.
-
Originally posted by Vanguard
The condescension between parties these days is inane to say the least. Some Dems did seem childishly petty following the election too.
Reminds me of when Madoxx got hate mail for saying "inane" and everyone thought it was "insane". Fun times.
'OMFG YOU R TEH RETARDZORZ! IT IS TEH "INSANE" NOT "INANE" YOU NUBCAEK! ROFL!!11!1!!!"
"...and you're a retard"
-
First of all, the people that criticized the spanish were a minority. It is their right to choose whomever they want. Who are we to criticize them. especially with head lines how can so many people be so stupid. And believe me, headlines and international intellectual butchery will continue. However, Americans are not still sitting around saying stupid socialist wussies and saying it ALL THE TIME. A little criticism is expected. True in our view they[the spanish] are not meddling with international politics. But hey show some respect.
-
Ok, enough.