Size 10 sense of humor...

[Iceman]

I don't care what anyone says really I like GWB...even when having a shoe thrown at him he is smiling....lol...what a cowboy. :up:

Pick your prefered news agency to see story...lol

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081214-bushducks2-hmed-11a.grid-4x2.jpg

http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/00719/eng_shoe_shuh_BM_Ba_719693g.jpg

http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/00719/eng_shoe_Bild2_BM_B_719654g.jpg

[Skybird]

Maybe he is too dump to know what slamming somebody with your shoe does mean in the Arab world. They slammed portraits of Saddam with shoes, too, after he was kicked out of office.

[Iceman]

same ole Skybird...stupid is as stupid does huh Sky?

[Skybird]

same ole Skybird...stupid is as stupid does huh Sky?
Do you mean Bush or yourself?



LOL, You gotta love the good old "Arab world & shoes" cliché. Because it's well known that in the western world throwing a shoe at someone's face is seen as a friendly gesture :rotfl:

Cliché? Not at all, but a reality. It is a gesture of most serious and hostile disgust and outrage, more offending than us showing the raised middle finger. This I tell you from knowledge at real location and explanations of people in those countries, not by just having read about it.

There was a much broadcasted Tv-snippet where Iraqis smacked portraits of Saddam with their shoes in their hand. Consider a Westerner urinating on a portrait, then you have a comparison of how much an overinterpreted "cliché" it is. I did not find that snippet, just these pictures as examples. the meaning is the same.

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/5725/saddamshoeonejt2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/2328/83912761yq8.png (http://imageshack.us)

[stabiz]

Sigh.

[subchaser12]

even when having a shoe thrown at him he is smiling....lol...what a cowboy. :up:



Notice no one else is smiling. I don't think he would have that **** eating grin if he had to go out on patrol and dodge IEDs or live with no food, water, security or sanitation.

What a scumbag.

[subchaser12]

Maybe he is too dump to know what slamming somebody with your shoe does mean in the Arab world.

The people who knew anything about Arab culture in the government were fired by this administration in the months leading up to the invasion in 2002. It shows too.

The disaster that is Iraq is the culmination of extreme ideology and incompetence. Two things that are the hallmarks of the Bush administration.

This is beyond sad. The man who started this tragic disaster is sitting there grinning ear to ear. Tell Satan I said wassup when you die.

[Skybird]

Well, yes, that's a cliché purported mostly by journalists, as in the MSNBC video. They just can't help it. I'm sure that if I rub my shoe on these journalists' nose they won't take it as an insult, since we know that shoes are offensive only for Arabs :rotfl:
That Arab-culture-shoe thing is a running joke for many arabs.
Oh and Musharraf is hardly and Arab.
If you really mean that, then I simply know it better than you. I was told it by Syrian, Iranian, Egyptian and Turkish people, and while being in their own countries. I do not refer to some Westernised Arab people living in the West since longer time and having a bit adapted to the different views on such things we hold in the West. We also do not often see our own portraits being urinated on, but that it happens rarely if ever does not mean it is a "chliché", nor does it mean it is a running joke. If it would happen, we would understand that it is meant as a very serious expression of sentiments regarding us, and not as a cliché at all.

The people who knew anything about Arab culture in the government were fired by this administration in the months leading up to the invasion in 2002. It shows too.

The disaster that is Iraq is the culmination of extreme ideology and incompetence

Indeed, very well documented and displayed in this very worthwhile documentation:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=143152&highlight=sight

[XabbaRus]

All I can say is good reactions. Those shoes were fair flying...

Sky as for Mikhayl not getting it showing the sole of your foot is insulting in the arab world, throwing a shoe at someone is maybe the most extreme form but as Mikhayl was saying "throwing" a shoe at someone isn't restricted to Arabs in terms of insulting. If someone chucked a shoe at me I'd pan them first chance I got....

Show me the sole of your foot, and well to me no big deal....

[Frame57]

"He is too dump..." What the hell does that mean?

[Onkel Neal]

"He is too dump..." What the hell does that mean?

No kidding. :rotfl: What a dump thing to say.

I will say, ol' W. sure has good moves :up: That shoe would have hit me square in the face and there's no way I would have been smiling. The guy that threw it is a coward. I bet he never threw any shoes at Saddam :nope:

[Rockstar]

When it was said "I bet he never threw a shoe at Saddam" al-Zaidi's actions may very well been one of fear or disgust. He may have been motivated by fear of the future that one day soon we will not be there and it will change back to the old ways.

[Dowly]

I think the smile on GWB's face is more like an "Hehe, that was funny.. nothing happened, I'm not scared" kind of smile than an "Lol, good one! Give that guy a medal!" type. Nothing cowboy in that if you ask me.

EDIT: Oh wait! Now I got it! Were those the WMD's Iraq has? Pretty lame.. :p

[Skybird]

All I can say is good reactions. Those shoes were fair flying...

Sky as for Mikhayl not getting it showing the sole of your foot is insulting in the arab world, throwing a shoe at someone is maybe the most extreme form but as Mikhayl was saying "throwing" a shoe at someone isn't restricted to Arabs in terms of insulting. If someone chucked a shoe at me I'd pan them first chance I got....

Smacking a shoe on a portrai, or kicking it or stepping onto it with your foot (matters little whether you are bare foot or wear shoes), and throwing a shoe at somebody, in these countries all has the same meaning, or in other words: that guy threw his shoe at Bush because otherwise he probably could not reach him. He could have thrown an egg, or fruits, or a pencil, or whatever. But it was his shoe he threw - he could as well stood on a Bush protrain, or smacking it with his shoe in the hand, it is all the same. This incident due to the place and culture were it took place most likely was not just meaning what it would have meant in any other place. In the West we would be laughing and be happy it were not eggs flying, since these would have done more "damage" (if hitting).

[subchaser12]

You really have to sit back in awe and take in this little incident. Bush himself and his entourage can't even keep a small press conference under control, let alone the country that is going down in flames around it.

Wow, just wow...:o

[Kipparikalle]

The guy that threw it is a coward. I bet he never threw any shoes at Saddam :nope:
Excuse me, but I can not longer stay out of this discussion


But can you tell me what was so coward in his actions? For me, he's quite badass for having balls to throw shoes at the ******* who ruined his country, and who apparently has couple of bodyquards with him. I'm surprised they didn't shoot him. But try to throw shoe at Saddam, you wouldn't be killed, no you would be tortured to death. Death is only an possibility with the Bush

[Onkel Neal]

The guy that threw it is a coward. I bet he never threw any shoes at Saddam :nope:

Excuse me, but I can not longer stay out of this discussion


But can you tell me what was so coward in his actions? For me, he's quite badass for having balls to throw shoes at the ******* who ruined his country, and who apparently has couple of bodyquards with them. I'm surprised they didn't shoot him

You're surprised the Secret Service didn't shoot him? Well, that says how little you know. He's a coward because he knows full well nothing of consequence will happen to him for tossing a shoe at the US President. He doesn't have balls, anyone can be a jackass. I would have loved to seen him toss a shoe at Saddam. As for "ruining his country", he didn't have a country before the US invasion, it was a dictatorship. It was Saddam's country, no one else's.

[Foxtrot]

I agree and I concur what he said while throwing shoes at Busie.
I would have loved to see those shoes coming at Rumsy and Cheney. They are much worst that Bushie.

[subchaser12]

He's a coward because he knows full well nothing of consequence will happen to him

This pretty much sums up Bush and his cronies who started the whole war.

[subchaser12]

the thing is, real change and revolutions must come from the people, from within, and certainly not from some hungry superpower with an agenda that doesn't care one bit for the people. You'd think Iran and many others would have teached a lesson about this.



This very thing is laid out quite clearly by Niccolo Machiaveli in the Prince and that was written in the 1500s.

Don't worry about Maliki, he will be deader than Julius Ceasar as soon as the troops pull out.

[Kipparikalle]

So, Neal. Are you still saying that he's a coward without balls?

There's a difference between jackasses and badassery

And if I were in his position, I'd to the same. I would be so f*cking pissed off, I wouldn't care what would happen to me afterwards. Having an as*hole who just f**ked up your country having a nice happy press meeting, would make anyone mad from hatred


Neal, it would be nice if you would just accept certain things in the world

[porphy]

If Bush was a real so called "cowboy" he would have thrown one of his own shoes back...! :yep:

cheers Porphy

[longam]

There were the 'haves' and 'have not' under the dictatorship rule and it was a huge spectrum with no middle. This guy was apparently a 'have' type and had it made.

[AVGWarhawk]

Skybird, what does it mean if a pair of shoes like this are thrown in Iraq?

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/avgwarhawk/pinkplushslippers-small.jpg

Sorry, could not help myself Sky:D Georgie sure has some good reflexes.

[caspofungin]

The guy that threw it is a coward. I bet he never threw any shoes at Saddam
I don't get it -- why is he a coward? I think it would take balls to express your displeasure this way instead of sitting down and biting your tongue.

Also, anyone who threw shoes at Saddam is probably dead, so I wouldn't take your bet.

[Oberon]

He was also being tested for alcohol and drugs, and his shoes were being held as evidence, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

:lol:

Gotta admit, George dodges well :up:

[Skybird]

Skybird, what does it mean if a pair of shoes like this are thrown in Iraq?

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/avgwarhawk/pinkplushslippers-small.jpg


Somebody just had had his coming out...?

[Frame57]

How soon we forget how many Kurds Sadaam killed...I forget what he used on them, wasn't it some gas or something? My ex wife used to hit me with a shoe now and then. Seems like a girly thing to do IMO...:D

[Onkel Neal]

The guy that threw it is a coward. I bet he never threw any shoes at Saddam
I don't get it -- why is he a coward? I think it would take balls to express your displeasure this way instead of sitting down and biting your tongue.

Also, anyone who threw shoes at Saddam is probably dead, so I wouldn't take your bet.

Caspo, it's simple. I'll repeat: he throws a shoe at Bush, knowing in advance he is relatively safe in doing so. What will happen to him? Is Bush going to have him and his family executed? No. The "journalist" may spend time in jail, maybe, but he knows he is not going to be killed. On the other hand, where was this indignation and bravery when Saddam was in power? Would he have been safe to do this to Saddam? No, not hardly. It's easy to jump up and protest when you know there will be no consequences. Think Madonna: she ridicules the Christian religon in her concerts. Oooohh, she's so daring. :roll: Ha, let's see her ridicule Mohammed. Same goes for the courageous anti-war protesters, I don't see them marching in the streets of Pyongyang, demanding reform. They march where it's safe. Cowards.

You know who I think is brave? Someone who will risk his life and welfare to help people. I don't think, in this era of human history, it's acceptable for any of us to look the other way when there are whole populations living under the whim of a dictatorship, any more than I think we can look the other way on slavery, discrimination, or organised crime.

One thing you have to credit Bush for; he made it possible for "journalists" to throw shoes in dissent in Iraq.

Anyway, that's how I see it. Feel free to disagree :)

Neal

[Onkel Neal]

Neal, it would be nice if you would just accept certain things in the world

Yeah, that's what the sheriff said to my great-grandfather when he spoke up against lynching black people.

[Skybird]

Next time we see something happening in the US, we judge it by the cultural standards of tribe people from Madagaskar, Neal. ;)

And in case that man was not so much about feeling enraged, but was more calculating about demonstrating, we call demonstrators at the place of the Washington Monument cowards for demonstrating against something although they know that they won't get executed for it. :smug:

[OneToughHerring]

I agree and I concur what he said while throwing shoes at Busie.
I would have loved to see those shoes coming at Rumsy and Cheney. They are much worst that Bushie.

If they threw shoes at Condi Rice she'd just be all "Keep throwing those shoes, I need more shoes!". :D

[Kipparikalle]

Neal, it would be nice if you would just accept certain things in the world
Yeah, that's what the sheriff said to my great-grandfather when he spoke up against lynching black people.
No

You seem not to understand, what I meant with that is no country, goverment, or man is perfect. You just seem so ignorant, you make a picture of yourself who goes war songs playing at anyone who even looks wrong way at your country.

If the man would have done this during the time of Saddam, the whole thing would be censored before it never made it to the press. Atleast on the Iraq
Why you're so ignorant? Why you just go and say that "he's a coward"?

There surely will be consequences to him, you can count on that.
But you just seem to ignore anything that isn't your liking

I'm quite sure, that in that man's shoes you would just sit there nicely, and bit the lip. Being what you call, a coward. And be like anyone else in the room.


Which is just phathetic


And the people who protect around places where they won't get hurt? Well what do you expect after getting over and over and over and over again punched around by the massive riotcopspam?


And before anyone starts saying "LUL UR 4NT1AM3R1C4!111" I don't hate America, infact. I love the country, people are so nice. I just don't like the some mentally ill people who just gives the wrong picture of the country

[AVGWarhawk]

Neal, it would be nice if you would just accept certain things in the world
Yeah, that's what the sheriff said to my great-grandfather when he spoke up against lynching black people.
No

You seem not to understand, what I meant with that is no country, goverment, or man is perfect. You just seem so ignorant, you make a picture of yourself who goes war songs playing at anyone who even looks wrong way at your country.

If the man would have done this during the time of Saddam, the whole thing would be censored before it never made it to the press. Atleast on the Iraq
Why you're so ignorant? Why you just go and say that "he's a coward"?

There surely will be consequences to him, you can count on that.
But you just seem to ignore anything that isn't your liking

I'm quite sure, that in that man's shoes you would just sit there nicely, and bit the lip. Being what you call, a coward. And be like anyone else in the room.


Which is just phathetic


The man is still badass, end of the story
Personally, I think shoe throwing is childish at best....even if it is something done in whatever country to show discontent. Kids throw shoes, not adults. Badass? No! Childish tantrum comes to mind. Would I bite my lip in that situation? No. As a journalist it is time to start asking questions and letting Bush know the general concensus of the people. Not throw a shoe.

Sure, it would be nice to accept some things in the world, however, what makes us individuals is the ability not to accept some things in the world.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Neal, it would be nice if you would just accept certain things in the world
Yeah, that's what the sheriff said to my great-grandfather when he spoke up against lynching black people.
No

You seem not to understand, what I meant with that is no country, goverment, or man is perfect. You just seem so ignorant, you make a picture of yourself who goes war songs playing at anyone who even looks wrong way at your country.

If the man would have done this during the time of Saddam, the whole thing would be censored before it never made it to the press. Atleast on the Iraq
Why you're so ignorant? Why you just go and say that "he's a coward"?

There surely will be consequences to him, you can count on that.
But you just seem to ignore anything that isn't your liking

I'm quite sure, that in that man's shoes you would just sit there nicely, and bit the lip. Being what you call, a coward. And be like anyone else in the room.


Which is just phathetic


The man is still badass, end of the story
Personally, I think shoe throwing is childish at best....even if it is something done in whatever country to show discontent. Kids throw shoes, not adults. Badass? No! Childish tantrum comes to mind. Would I bite my lip in that situation? No. As a journalist it is time to start asking questions and letting Bush know the general concensus of the people. Not throw a shoe.
That might be true in the USA. This happened far way from the USA in a completely different cultural context.

PD

[AVGWarhawk]

Neal, it would be nice if you would just accept certain things in the world
Yeah, that's what the sheriff said to my great-grandfather when he spoke up against lynching black people.
No

You seem not to understand, what I meant with that is no country, goverment, or man is perfect. You just seem so ignorant, you make a picture of yourself who goes war songs playing at anyone who even looks wrong way at your country.

If the man would have done this during the time of Saddam, the whole thing would be censored before it never made it to the press. Atleast on the Iraq
Why you're so ignorant? Why you just go and say that "he's a coward"?

There surely will be consequences to him, you can count on that.
But you just seem to ignore anything that isn't your liking

I'm quite sure, that in that man's shoes you would just sit there nicely, and bit the lip. Being what you call, a coward. And be like anyone else in the room.


Which is just phathetic


The man is still badass, end of the story
Personally, I think shoe throwing is childish at best....even if it is something done in whatever country to show discontent. Kids throw shoes, not adults. Badass? No! Childish tantrum comes to mind. Would I bite my lip in that situation? No. As a journalist it is time to start asking questions and letting Bush know the general concensus of the people. Not throw a shoe. That might be true in the USA. This happened far way from the USA in a completely different cultural context.

PD

I understand completely, but you have made my point. Neal is viewed as ignorant in expressing his views on shoe throwing. I have as well. But, Neal is told to just accept things in the world. And I'm sure I will be told the same. But Kipp has to realize that not everyone is going to just accept somethings that happen in the world. If everyone did that things like genocide would be, 'just accepted'. Although genocide is more grievous than tossing a shoe but you get my point.

[Thomen]

Neal, it would be nice if you would just accept certain things in the world
Yeah, that's what the sheriff said to my great-grandfather when he spoke up against lynching black people.
No

You seem not to understand, what I meant with that is no country, goverment, or man is perfect. You just seem so ignorant, you make a picture of yourself who goes war songs playing at anyone who even looks wrong way at your country.

If the man would have done this during the time of Saddam, the whole thing would be censored before it never made it to the press. Atleast on the Iraq
Why you're so ignorant? Why you just go and say that "he's a coward"?

There surely will be consequences to him, you can count on that.
But you just seem to ignore anything that isn't your liking

I'm quite sure, that in that man's shoes you would just sit there nicely, and bit the lip. Being what you call, a coward. And be like anyone else in the room.


Which is just phathetic


And the people who protect around places where they won't get hurt? Well what do you expect after getting over and over and over and over again punched around by the massive riotcopspam?


And before anyone starts saying "LUL UR 4NT1AM3R1C4!111" I don't hate America, infact. I love the country, people are so nice. I just don't like the some mentally ill people who just gives the wrong picture of the country

Or maybe the journalist just tried to be a smartass or boost his own ego and promote his name?
Or he tried to please al-Sadr?

His motivation, however, needs to be questioned.

"He [Al-Zeidi] was very boastful, arrogant and always showing off," said Zanko Ahmed, a Kurdish journalist who attended a journalism training course with al-Zeidi in Lebanon. "He tried to raise topics to show that nobody is as smart as he is."


Ahmed recalled that al-Zeidi spoke glowingly of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose followers organized protests Monday to demand his release.


"Regrettably, he didn't learn anything from the course in Lebanon, where we were taught ethics of journalism and how to be detached and neutral," Ahmed said.

[PeriscopeDepth]

If everyone did that things like genocide would be, 'just accepted'. Although genocide is more grievous than tossing a shoe but you get my point. I get what you're saying, but...

Genocide is "just accepted". Certainly more so than throwing a shoe at George W is if this forum is to be any indication. It is going on multiple places in the world right now, some on a very large scale. I know you were making an extreme example, but it was a ridiculous one.

PD

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm sure if some foreign dude had ruined your country you would rather "ask him questions" than punching his sorry face if you had the occasion. Anyway, throwing stuff at Bush IS the consensus among the Iraqi and in most of the middle east if the coverage of this event is of any indication.

Oh and calling this man a coward is so disconnected from the real world. The man is journalist in a country where capturing and killing journalists is a sport, actually he was himself kidnapped by milicias last year, and he's still doing his job. By the way, his family said that they still don't know where he is held. I wish all journalists would be like that "coward".

No, I would be a bit pissed, however, I would not throw a shoe. I would not throw a shoe at the terrorists that took down the towers in NY City. It is not my way to show disrespect for another. But a few seem to find it difficult that not agreeing with a shoe throwing somehow makes that person ignorant. That in itself is ignorant. What, do you think the American people all agree with Bush? No they don't and they protest without throwing a shoe. That is only point I'm making. Do I think the journalist is a coward? Not really, I would be hard pressed to find myself throwing my shoe. But that is just me.

[AVGWarhawk]

If everyone did that things like genocide would be, 'just accepted'. Although genocide is more grievous than tossing a shoe but you get my point. I get what you're saying, but...

Genocide is "just accepted". Certainly more so than throwing a shoe at George W is if this forum is to be any indication. It is going on multiple places in the world right now, some on a very large scale. I know you were making an extreme example, but it was a ridiculous one.

PD

Have we had a genocide thread yet?:hmm: So, you are saying that genocide or just ethnic cleansing is accepted? Perhaps it is just ignored?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Have we had a genocide thread yet?:hmm: So, you are saying that genocide or just ethnic cleansing is accepted? Perhaps it is just ignored?
I'm sure we have.

What I am saying is that some Iraqi throwing a shoe at George seems to rile up a lot more people here than in progress mass murders throughout the world. Which is largely the fault of the media I know, who only covers these things "when there is a reason to".

PD

[AVGWarhawk]

Have we had a genocide thread yet?:hmm: So, you are saying that genocide or just ethnic cleansing is accepted? Perhaps it is just ignored? I'm sure we have.

What I am saying is that some Iraqi throwing a shoe at George seems to rile up a lot more people here than in progress mass murders throughout the world. Which is largely the fault of the media I know, who only covers these things "when there is a reason to".

PD
What you said is very true. A set of Dr Scholls has created more conversation than mass murder. I would have to say and most would agree, America and the world are not very happy with George and rightly so. But, as Americans, we can only blame ourselves for putting him back in a second term. As for the world, start the shoe throwing.

[Letum]

Well, yes, that's a cliché purported mostly by journalists, as in the MSNBC video. They just can't help it. I'm sure that if I rub my shoe on these journalists' nose they won't take it as an insult, since we know that shoes are offensive only for Arabs...

Actually shoes are revered as holy by many Arab nations.

http://www.lazykracker.com/pic/MontyPython/sandal.jpg

[caspofungin]

First, I don't think calling people ignorant is helpful.

Having said that, I am a little disturbed with the sentiment that in order to dissent and not be considered a coward, you have to expose yourself to torture and death.

Throwing a shoe might not be the most effective or mature means of expressing yourself, but it's better than doing nothing. And it's probably better than asking questions that will be ignored and never answered. After all, Bush has dodged more than shoes in his time in office.

@Letum
"He's not a journalist, he's a very naughty boy!"

[AVGWarhawk]

First, I don't think calling people ignorant is helpful


True!

[Coyote88]

If this guy had trained with us,

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/uploaded/bush-and-shoe-20081214-7.jpg

he'd have scored hits with both shoes and escaped underneath the chairs.

[AVGWarhawk]

Anyway, on the way home today I listen to the news. Apparently, not all think the shoe man is a hero. Also, the shoe man is still in deep doo doo for going after a foreign leader as well as his own countries leader. Furthermore, a gentleman got an eye injury in the scuffle to subdue the shoe perp. I'm not so sure he is happy with his throwing a shoe for his discontent state of mind. Perhaps leaving on the shoes so he could walk out of the press conference would have been better then being dragged out.

[subchaser12]

Anyway, on the way home today I listen to the news. Apparently, not all think the shoe man is a hero.

I'm going to take a really wild guess and assume this was a right wing station? :arrgh!:

[bradclark1]

Actually shoes are revered as holy by many Arab nations.


Shoes that are Holey are called sandals aren't they?:arrgh!:

[Aramike]

Sorry, have to interject...

The idea that there are more important things to worry about and discuss is preposturous. Why? Because that would hold true for just about anything.

By that logic, I shouldn't discuss the Green Bay Packers with someone because the Russians are sending ships to Cuba.

Also, I believe it was Jane Adams who said, "What is understood need not be discussed." Well, we all understand and probably agree that genocide is evil. As evil as it is, however, it simply isn't too remarkable or debatable. Therefore, it's not terribly conducive to discussion.

As for this "reporter's" behavior, its purely reprehensible. Someone should remind him that he would be tortured and killed if his outburst was against Saddam. Probably his family, too. Furthermore, his supporters should be reminded that they would ALSO suffer for their detraction.

It boggles my mind how little people appreciate the freedom of speech and assembly. Especially considering that those who least appreciate it are the ones who are the most likely to benefit from it (you know, not being thrown in prison or worse for their ideas).

[subchaser12]

I just want to remind everyone Saddam being a bad man was NOT the reason for the war. We were told he was building weapons of mass destruction, aka a nuclear weapon. That was the LIE we were told.

Don't even act like Bush and Company was going on flawed intel. I'm just going to head off this lie before someone fires it. It is well documented that everyone who told Bush and Company anything they didn't want to hear about Saddm and Iraq was immediately fired and replaced with a "yes man".

[Aramike]

I just want to remind everyone Saddam being a bad man was NOT the reason for the war. We were told he was building weapons of mass destruction, aka a nuclear weapon. That was the LIE we were told.

Don't even act like Bush and Company was going on flawed intel. I'm just going to head off this lie before someone fires it. It is well documented that everyone who told Bush and Company anything they didn't want to hear about Saddm and Iraq was immediately fired and replaced with a "yes man".It's even more well-documented that the intel was flawed, considering how many other nations contributed to it. As a matter of fact, the only "documented" cases of "lies" are from loose suppositions tied together by those with an agenda.

There is a reason the liberal media doesn't present it as a lie, you know... :roll:

[subchaser12]

I just want to remind everyone Saddam being a bad man was NOT the reason for the war. We were told he was building weapons of mass destruction, aka a nuclear weapon. That was the LIE we were told.

Don't even act like Bush and Company was going on flawed intel. I'm just going to head off this lie before someone fires it. It is well documented that everyone who told Bush and Company anything they didn't want to hear about Saddm and Iraq was immediately fired and replaced with a "yes man".It's even more well-documented that the intel was flawed, considering how many other nations contributed to it. As a matter of fact, the only "documented" cases of "lies" are from loose suppositions tied together by those with an agenda.

There is a reason the liberal media doesn't present it as a lie, you know... :roll:

Amazing, I knew the first comment would be blaming the intel and I addressed it. Yet you bleated that very same thing automatically. Wow.

[Aramike]

I just want to remind everyone Saddam being a bad man was NOT the reason for the war. We were told he was building weapons of mass destruction, aka a nuclear weapon. That was the LIE we were told.

Don't even act like Bush and Company was going on flawed intel. I'm just going to head off this lie before someone fires it. It is well documented that everyone who told Bush and Company anything they didn't want to hear about Saddm and Iraq was immediately fired and replaced with a "yes man".It's even more well-documented that the intel was flawed, considering how many other nations contributed to it. As a matter of fact, the only "documented" cases of "lies" are from loose suppositions tied together by those with an agenda.

There is a reason the liberal media doesn't present it as a lie, you know... :roll:

Amazing, I knew the first comment would be blaming the intel and I addressed it. Yet you bleated that very same thing automatically. Wow.Just because you "address" a rebuttal in advance doesn't make you correct in the least.

What, do you fancy yourself the Ultimate Authority on Debate?

Furthermore, you saying something is "well-documented" does not make it true. I submit that your sources of "well-documentation" are dubious and politically-motivated at best. Futhermore, I submit that it is FAR MORE "well-documented" by GOVERNMENTS that there was flawed intelligence.

I disagree with Bush on many things as well as you seem to. However, I can stay in the realm of fact and logic to present my disagreements. I don't feel some irrepressible need to use biased supposition to do so.

And I sure as heck don't attempt to pretend to be an authority on the absolute of an argument by arbitrarily attempting to present an opponent's rebuttal and merely labeling it incorrect. :roll:

[subchaser12]

Furthermore, you saying something is "well-documented" does not make it true. I submit that your sources of "well-documentation" are dubious and politically-motivated at best. Futhermore, I submit that it is FAR MORE "well-documented" by GOVERNMENTS that there was flawed intelligence.

I disagree with Bush on many things as well as you seem to. However, I can stay in the realm of fact and logic to present my disagreements. I don't feel some irrepressible need to use biased supposition to do so.

And I sure as heck don't attempt to pretend to be an authority on the absolute of an argument by arbitrarily attempting to present an opponent's rebuttal and merely labeling it incorrect. :roll:

Lot's of big pretty words here, but thats about it. This would be a perfectly reasonable arguement if it was 2003, 2004 or maybe even 2005. Take a look at the calendar because it's almost 2009. You could defend Bush and Company against these claims as "politically motivated" if the cat hadn't been out of the bag for years. The times when the outright lies and misteps by this administration could be labeled as "political" attacks are long gone. The lies by this administration about the starting of this war is all old news and you are just in denial at this point if you are still clinging to these sad attempts by Bush and Company to lay the blame at the intelligence community's feet.
The inteligence community would not take it sitting down the second time when Bush and Company tried to get a war going with Iran. Remember when they "leaked" the intelligence that Iran was NOT anywhere near or capable of making nuclear weapons? Bush and Company cried wolf once and they were not allowed to do it again. Israel is the only one still claiming Iran almost has a nuke, but I have old socks with more credibility than Israel.
I'm not going to try and change your mind, because anyone who can support Bush at this stage in the game is too set in their ideology and there isn't anything anyone can say to you. Honestly I don't want to change your mind, if you and enough like you on the right continue this mindset that is good for me, because I won't ever have to live under another republican president.

[OneToughHerring]

Personally, I think shoe throwing is childish at best....even if it is something done in whatever country to show discontent. Kids throw shoes, not adults. Badass? No! Childish tantrum comes to mind. Would I bite my lip in that situation? No. As a journalist it is time to start asking questions and letting Bush know the general concensus of the people. Not throw a shoe.

Sure, it would be nice to accept some things in the world, however, what makes us individuals is the ability not to accept some things in the world.

You don't really think Bush and his cronies actually have to give answers to tough questions? I mean, they've been there ducking those questions for eight years now, are you saying that they are about to begin to answer those questions? I think this shoe-throwing incident kind of summarizes the feelings of a lot of people especially in the Arab world concerning Bush and his crusades.

[August]

I think this shoe-throwing incident kind of summarizes the feelings of a lot of people especially in the Arab world concerning Bush and his crusades.

Well we know it sums up yours...

[Aramike]

Get your FACTS straight, pal. Yeah, FACTS. Fun word.

Read this, from FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/iraq/anti-war_ad_says_bush_cheney_rumsfeld.html.

This included: "And a bipartisan commission concluded earlier this year that what the Bush administration told the world about Iraqi weapons – while tragically mistaken – was based on faulty intelligence."

Lot's of big pretty words here, but thats about it. This would be a perfectly reasonable arguement if it was 2003, 2004 or maybe even 2005. Take a look at the calendar because it's almost 2009. You could defend Bush and Company against these claims as "politically motivated" if the cat hadn't been out of the bag for years.The year that the argument is made has nothing to do with it's accuracy. No "cat" has been let out of any "bag".The times when the outright lies and misteps by this administration could be labeled as "political" attacks are long gone. The lies by this administration about the starting of this war is all old news and you are just in denial at this point if you are still clinging to these sad attempts by Bush and Company to lay the blame at the intelligence community's feet. Again, you state things and pretend they are facts simply because you are stating them.

The FACT is that Bush has been cleared of lying time and time again by BIPARTISAN groups. This is a FACT. Not a supposition made out of blind hatred for the president.

Someone here is clinging to something, and it isn't me. Like I said, I can use actual FACTS to back my arguments - not absurd ideas conjurred up to support my hatred.The inteligence community would not take it sitting down the second time when Bush and Company tried to get a war going with Iran. Remember when they "leaked" the intelligence that Iran was NOT anywhere near or capable of making nuclear weapons? Bush and Company cried wolf once and they were not allowed to do it again. Israel is the only one still claiming Iran almost has a nuke, but I have old socks with more credibility than Israel.This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion, therefore I'm forced to assume you are unable to base your argument in relevent facts.I'm not going to try and change your mind, because anyone who can support Bush at this stage in the game is too set in their ideology and there isn't anything anyone can say to you. Evidently reading and comprehension isn't required to hate someone, either. I said that I DISAGREE with Bush on many things.

Futhermore, the "argument" that there isn't anything anyone can say to someone would apply both ways, it would seem.

But at least the FACTS support what I'm saying.

This is like talking to people from the Flat Earth Society. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/ You believe what you're going to believe to support your state-of-mind, facts be damned.

What's more likely: Round earth that all evidence supports or a huge, multi-government conspiracy concealing a flat earth?

What's more likely: Faulty intelligence leading to a war as is PROVEN to be the case or the US President, British PM, and others said, "the heck with it" and went in anyway?

Seriously, stop, choke down your hatred, and THINK about it critically. Do you REALLY believe that there would have been ANY nation (especially the British, who's intelligence networks rival our own) following us in our invasion MERELY on the WORD of the PRESIDENT? SERIOUSLY??? HAH!

Honestly I don't want to change your mind, if you and enough like you on the right continue this mindset that is good for me,Who said I'm on the right? That's a pretty huge assumption to make from me merely demonstrating that your argument is faulty.because I won't ever have to live under another republican president.Well, I'm pretty sure that was said after Nixon. We saw how that worked.

Furthermore, thanks for demonstrating YOUR bias.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Wrong forum, Coyote88.

[Kapt Z]

I expect to see this as a carnival game on Jenkinson's Boardwalk this summer! :lol:

Right next to 'wack-a-mole'....;)

[GoldenRivet]

Wrong forum, Coyote88.
haha just finished watching das boot (im sick... there is something about getting wasted and watching the first 15 minutes)

"damn torpedoes . . . dont run true!" - comes to mind

[PeriscopeDepth]

Predictably any topic that contains the word "Iraq" is derailed. But anywho...

This included: "And a bipartisan commission concluded earlier this year that what the Bush administration told the world about Iraqi weapons – while tragically mistaken – was based on faulty intelligence." Faulty intelligence that was cherry picked by neocon DoD stooges who were on a mission to make invading Iraq look like a good idea. This is the faulty intelligence that was presented to Congress and our half witted fearless leader. These same stooges were unable to con Bush I into it without the profound effect September 11 had on policy. I would post the youtube of Cheney explaining in 1994 why we shouldn't have gotten rid of Saddam after Desert Storm, but I'm sure most of you have seen it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

I expect to see this as a carnival game on Jenkinson's Boardwalk this summer! :lol:

Right next to 'wack-a-mole'....;)
Fun and frustrating for the same reasons! :D

PD

[Iceman]

Did'nt mean to cause a ruckus...and I do not apoligize for liking my president and his Texan demeanor...who knows I may even appreciate Obama...I think his speech sounds dorky but hey..thats him...clinton was well...we won't go there...carter had peanuts and regan had the movies...all American presidents come from...America...so they all will bring a unique personality to the position...I was merely noting his boyish/cowboy style way of brushing it off with a smile...Kudos to him...he didnt say off with his head im sure so its all good...something to add to his future book I suppose...I personally love the clip Letterman had made of Bush's silliness...what will the media do now once he is gone....Obama is fair game now I guess. :) Next Victum--->

Lighten up people life is too short.

[Aramike]

Faulty intelligence that was cherry picked by neocon DoD stooges who were on a mission to make invading Iraq look like a good idea. This is the faulty intelligence that was presented to Congress and our half witted fearless leader. These same stooges were unable to con Bush I into it without the profound effect September 11 had on policy. I would post the youtube of Cheney explaining in 1994 why we shouldn't have gotten rid of Saddam after Desert Storm, but I'm sure most of you have seen it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

PDI agree that intelligence with presented with slanted blinders. But, that being said, faulty intelligence is faulty intelligence.

Also, I HOPE that you've actually read the entire report from the Pentagon's Inspector General regarding the intelligence. Because in it, it states: "we believe the actions were inappropriate because a policy office was producing intelligence products and was not clearly conveying to senior-decision makers the varience with the consensus of the Intelligence Community."

So much for the argument that Bush lied.

[subchaser12]

Get your FACTS straight, pal. Yeah, FACTS. Fun word.



This included: "And a bipartisan commission concluded earlier this year that what the Bush administration told the world about Iraqi weapons – while tragically mistaken – was based on faulty intelligence."



You're getting angry. The world bipartisan carries about as much weight as the term "low fat". It doesn't mean anything anymore.

[subchaser12]

So much for the argument that Bush lied.

If you say so pal :D

[A Very Super Market]

Given what Bush has gone through before, it'd take more than 2 shoes to the bow to take him down!

You have to hit his keel, where he and his cargo are most vulnerable. :p





(And if someone didn't get that, I mean his crotch)

[OneToughHerring]

I think this shoe-throwing incident kind of summarizes the feelings of a lot of people especially in the Arab world concerning Bush and his crusades.
Well we know it sums up yours...

If I'd throw something at Bush it wouldn't be a shoe. Maybe it'd be what this dude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Arutyunian)threw at Bush, but unfortunately missed.

I'd say throwing a RGD-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGD-5) is less 'childish' than throwing a shoe.

[Aramike]

You're getting angry. The world bipartisan carries about as much weight as the term "low fat". It doesn't mean anything anymore.Not angry. Try not to read into the words I write any further than their literal meaning. Trust me, you can't anger me. Perhaps you elicited some smugness, but certainly not anger.

I don't get mad at the Flat Earth people, either. ;)

As far as "bipartisan" not meaning anything, I assume that nothing means anything to you except for suppositions supporting your arguments. I mean, hey, why let FACTS get in the way of a clearly biased, unsupported argument.

I think your problem is that you WANT Bush to have lied ... that way you can justify your hatred of him. Therefore, nothing that PROVES he did NOT lie is acceptable to you regardless of the source.

I hope I'm never as closed-minded as you, sorry to say. I find that intellectual honesty is far more important than any personal view of mine.

Oh, and before you come back and accuse me of being closed-minded, remind yourself that my arguments are supported by actual, DEMONSTRATED facts.

Also, bear in mind that, in no way have I mentioned whether or not I support the war in general. That's because it is irrelevent to the truth or whether or not Bush lied.If you say so pal Umm, here's the difference in our arguments. *I* didn't say so. My SOURCES and those DOCUMENTS said so.

*YOU* are the one with the "because I said so" argument. :rock:

[Aramike]

I think this shoe-throwing incident kind of summarizes the feelings of a lot of people especially in the Arab world concerning Bush and his crusades.
Well we know it sums up yours...

If I'd throw something at Bush it wouldn't be a shoe. Maybe it'd be what this dude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Arutyunian)threw at Bush, but unfortunately missed.

I'd say throwing a RGD-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGD-5) is less 'childish' than throwing a shoe.Wow. Unbelievable that someone is actually advocating the assassination of a democratically elected world leader.

Pathetic. I think that post should be deleted.

[GoldenRivet]

nice sig:up:

[OneToughHerring]

I think this shoe-throwing incident kind of summarizes the feelings of a lot of people especially in the Arab world concerning Bush and his crusades.
Well we know it sums up yours...
If I'd throw something at Bush it wouldn't be a shoe. Maybe it'd be what this dude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Arutyunian)threw at Bush, but unfortunately missed.

I'd say throwing a RGD-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGD-5) is less 'childish' than throwing a shoe.Wow. Unbelievable that someone is actually advocating the assassination of a democratically elected world leader.

Pathetic. I think that post should be deleted.

Hitler was more or less democratically elected, so were a lot of leaders. What exactly is your criteria for leaders who are beyond criticism and who are not?

[subchaser12]

As far as "bipartisan" not meaning anything, I assume that nothing means anything to you except for suppositions supporting your arguments. I mean, hey, why let FACTS get in the way of a clearly biased, unsupported argument.

I hope I'm never as closed-minded as you, sorry to say. I find that intellectual honesty is far more important than any personal view of mine.

Oh, and before you come back and accuse me of being closed-minded, remind yourself that my arguments are supported by actual, DEMONSTRATED facts.



Aramike do you believe in god?

[Aramike]

Hitler was more or less democratically elected, so were a lot of leaders. What exactly is your criteria for leaders who are beyond criticism and who are not?You may want to read up on your history, buddy. Hitler was APPOINTED chancellor then, upon the death of the German president, APPOINTED HIMSELF as Furher, disbanded the office of the German President, siezed full power over German government, and OUTLAWED opposing political parties, through his cabinet.

A little different than democratically-elected, I would say...

Furthermore, criticism and advocating assassination are two VERY, VERY different things.Aramike do you believe in god?As if it's any of your business, I'll answer. No, I'm an agnostic, therefore I don't harbor a belief one way or the other.

Although I see where you are trying to go - suggesting that a belief in God would be at odds with intellectual honesty, however a belief in something that can neither be proven nor disproven is different than believing in something that can be demonstrated as fact.

[Aramike]

Here's an excerpt from my blog regarding agnosticism and the pursuit of actual FACTS (the underlying theme of this debate):...To be more precise, my original deep faith has turned into questions, has turned into an almost hardened agnosticism. It is difficult for me to acknowledge the existence of any deity when, seemingly, my fate is beyond my control.
When I say "fate", I don't neccessarily mean my spiritual destination. I'm more directly referring to my ever-fluctuating states-of-mind. Is it MY fault that I logically find the very idea of God to be a human creation? Is it MY fault that my inherent skepticism finds it to me more likely that Earth is the winner of a billion-to-one evolutionary lottery than for one religion's specific god to turn out to be THE God?

Some people are predisposed to blind faith. Others are inherently skeptics whose faith only extends as far as their flawed vision.

Me? I just don't know.

I've played the PowerBall a few times. Never won a dime... However, my odds of winning are LESS than the chance of our planet being life-sustaining. Yet. SOMEBODY seems to win.

Even though the chances are extremely remote that the Earth could, via evolution create such a life-sustaining and promoting environment, the chances that SOME planet would are overwhelming.

Let's look at the PowerBall odds again. While my chances of winning are significantly nearly mathematically non-existant, the chances of SOMEONE winning are CLEAR. Why is it so difficult to believe that Earth is the SIGNIFICANT CHANCE WINNER of the PowerBall, so to speak?

But then there's the other side. There's the religious among us who can't see themselves as the winner. They believe that "creationism" is the only TRUE path to our existance. They believe that, the remote odds of the Earth's PowerBall win would somehow mathematically preclude us from "winning".

See, statistically, the creationists lose. One-in-a-billion is STILL one. However, it would only be human to believe that they got a point. We NEED something bigger than ourselves. It's a typical human belonging-based behavior and attitude. There MUST be something bigger than US!

Here's where I find myself in a struggle. I need only ask a few questions:

1 - If God created me, and wanted me to believe in Him, why did He create me to be a scientifically discerning individual, unlike others who find themselves able to simply accept the thesis that we've evolved through natural selection?

2 - If there is NO God, what creates and governs nature (i.e., why is "natural selection" considered to be "natural"; why does life WANT TO LIVE and therefore, EVOLVE?)? What creates the survival instinct?

3 - If there IS a God, why does He make me believe, AGAINST my physical nature, which He would have then CREATED? Why would a god stack the odds against me?
The fact is, to die is to know. Humanity is such a low-probabilty creation that no one living may ever know our origins to a certainty. Our very existance is blessed, in spite of whatever our core beliefs are.

If you believe in God, are you wrong? Dunno.

If you believe in something else, are you right? Still dunno.

All we can do is take the best of who we are, and try to create ourselves in the image of the best God we can agree on.

...and if we can't do that, we're in for a devastating bout of natural DEselection.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Did'nt mean to cause a ruckus...and I do not apoligize for liking my president and his Texan demeanor...who knows I may even appreciate Obama...I think his speech sounds dorky but hey..thats him...clinton was well...we won't go there...carter had peanuts and regan had the movies...all American presidents come from...America...so they all will bring a unique personality to the position...I was merely noting his boyish/cowboy style way of brushing it off with a smile...Kudos to him...he didnt say off with his head im sure so its all good...something to add to his future book I suppose...I personally love the clip Letterman had made of Bush's silliness...what will the media do now once he is gone....Obama is fair game now I guess. :) Next Victum--->

Lighten up people life is too short.
That should be a thread. What will the Obama SNL skits be about. :D I guess we won't know everything until he screws something up, but still an interesting guessing game...

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

Faulty intelligence that was cherry picked by neocon DoD stooges who were on a mission to make invading Iraq look like a good idea. This is the faulty intelligence that was presented to Congress and our half witted fearless leader. These same stooges were unable to con Bush I into it without the profound effect September 11 had on policy. I would post the youtube of Cheney explaining in 1994 why we shouldn't have gotten rid of Saddam after Desert Storm, but I'm sure most of you have seen it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

PDI agree that intelligence with presented with slanted blinders. But, that being said, faulty intelligence is faulty intelligence.

Also, I HOPE that you've actually read the entire report from the Pentagon's Inspector General regarding the intelligence. Because in it, it states: "we believe the actions were inappropriate because a policy office was producing intelligence products and was not clearly conveying to senior-decision makers the varience with the consensus of the Intelligence Community."

So much for the argument that Bush lied.
I don't think that Bush lied. I think he was suckered. Despite all the bad things people say about him, I really do believe that he had the best intentions. He was just easy to sucker. Some of the people that gave Feith his marching orders certainly had an agenda, though.

PD

[Aramike]

I don't think that Bush lied. I think he was suckered. Despite all the bad things people say about him, I really do believe that he had the best intentions. He was just easy to sucker. Some of the people that gave Feith his marching orders certainly had an agenda, though.I can KIND of agree with that, except for the easy to sucker, part. He wasn't any easier to sucker than the American people and the British government. And, if you look closely at historical events, Saddam didn't do much to dispel the WMD fears.

And, if we are to be intellectually honest, we have to remember that Saddam had MONTHS of warning prior to the invasion. How hard would it be to cover up any evidence and smuggle WMDs out of the country during that time? Drug-runners and arms-dealers bring at LEAST several HUNDRED TONS of material over the US border each month.

Again, I'm not stating that I support the war. That's irrelevent. What I am stating is that the alleged instigation of the war may have indeed been true. Unless Syria decides to open its borders up to international inspection, we may never know for sure. And even then, it's been more than 5 years.

That fact remains that we just don't know for sure. But we DO know and can safely conclude that Bush did not lie.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I can KIND of agree with that, except for the easy to sucker, part. He wasn't any easier to sucker than the American people and the British government. And, if you look closely at historical events, Saddam didn't do much to dispel the WMD fears.
As I said, I think the environment post 9/11 is what had us. Thousands of American civilians had just been murdered and some people we trusted were telling us Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda and was hosting terrorist training camps/planning safe havens that would guarantee another attack. I was suckered for supporting invading Iraq at first as well.

And, if we are to be intellectually honest, we have to remember that Saddam had MONTHS of warning prior to the invasion. How hard would it be to cover up any evidence and smuggle WMDs out of the country during that time? Drug-runners and arms-dealers bring at LEAST several HUNDRED TONS of material over the US border each month.
I don't doubt that SoDamn Insane had WMD at one point. Denying that is silly and must be interpreted as a denial of a state genocideing (I know that's not a word) its own people. But if we are being intellectually honest, we must also admit Saddam's WMD facilities had been bombed by the most capable aerial forces on this planet for about a decade before the invasion. I seriously doubt he had any capability to produce WMD through most of the '90s. And the shelf like on any previously produced WMD that survived our decade long aerial intimidation (modern gunboat diplomacy) had likely expired.

That fact remains that we just don't know for sure. But we DO know and can safely conclude that Bush did not lie.
I agree on both points. We'll never know. And telling a lie involves knowing it to be false.

PD

[Onkel Neal]

Neal, it would be nice if you would just accept certain things in the world
Yeah, that's what the sheriff said to my great-grandfather when he spoke up against lynching black people.
No

You seem not to understand, what I meant with that is no country, goverment, or man is perfect. You just seem so ignorant, you make a picture of yourself who goes war songs playing at anyone who even looks wrong way at your country.

If the man would have done this during the time of Saddam, the whole thing would be censored before it never made it to the press. Atleast on the Iraq
Why you're so ignorant? Why you just go and say that "he's a coward"?

There surely will be consequences to him, you can count on that.
But you just seem to ignore anything that isn't your liking

I'm quite sure, that in that man's shoes you would just sit there nicely, and bit the lip. Being what you call, a coward. And be like anyone else in the room.


Which is just phathetic


And the people who protect around places where they won't get hurt? Well what do you expect after getting over and over and over and over again punched around by the massive riotcopspam?


And before anyone starts saying "LUL UR 4NT1AM3R1C4!111" I don't hate America, infact. I love the country, people are so nice. I just don't like the some mentally ill people who just gives the wrong picture of the country

I was able to express my point without insulting you.

[_Seth_]

@ A Very Super Market; Please, mate, reduce the size of your sig...it`s kind of...too large..:yep:
(Read here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=susbim_faq_item#faq_signature_image_fa qs)

BTW: Thread moved to GT-forum. :up:

[subchaser12]

As if it's any of your business, I'll answer. No, I'm an agnostic, therefore I don't harbor a belief one way or the other.


Crap, that totally screwed up my plan. I'm an agnostic too. 99.9% of the time right wing Bush fans are bible beaters.

[subchaser12]

if you look closely at historical events, Saddam didn't do much to dispel the WMD fears.

And, if we are to be intellectually honest, we have to remember that Saddam had MONTHS of warning prior to the invasion. How hard would it be to cover up any evidence and smuggle WMDs out of the country during that time? Drug-runners and arms-dealers bring at LEAST several HUNDRED TONS of material over the US border each month.



Ok, this isn't a plot in a James Bond movie. This is a little bit of a stretch. Joe Sixpack might think you can just hammer together a nuke from parts from a junkyard but these are the same people who believed Saddam and Bin Laden went bar hoping together. It just doesn't work this way.

Look at what was left of Saddam's army after desert storm. Crappy T-72s, BMPs, all in disrepair with a poorly trained army. To say they also had a nuke in their arsenal is silly. That would be like finding a Taliban tribe in the mountains of Afghanistan with a stealth bomber in their yard.

How does a country that is in tatters suffering under a decade old and enforced embargo just slap together a nuke? They don't. Also smuggling a nuke out of the country, oh please, if he would have had one he would have used it when the Americans invaded. I mean what else would he possibly be saving it for? That's about as rainy as rainy days get.

Besides, it's so easy to prove we did NOT take out Saddam because he was a dictator, terrorist or genocidal maniac. Why do we not care about any other genocidal, dictator maniacs in the world? North Korea, Burma or any of the countless African warlords? We only care about the one sitting on the oil field, imagine that. The only two presidents to care about Saddam since he took power in 1979 have been the Bushes. Two Texas OIL men. Surprise surprise. Funny we weren't in danger any other time except when a Bush was in office.

The current Bush is a 3rd generation oil man and war profiteer. Yes I said war profiteer, go look and see how the Bush family fortune started if you don't want to believe me.

[PeriscopeDepth]

How does a country that is in tatters suffering under a decade old and enforced embargo just slap together a nuke? They don't. Also smuggling a nuke out of the country, oh please, if he would have had one he would have used it when the Americans invaded. I mean what else would he possibly be saving it for? That's about as rainy as rainy days get.
Calling it an embargo is an understatement. We bombed these people at the drop of a hat for the past decade with a force whose supremacy and effectiveness would make the Eighth Air Force very jealous. I think the odds of a WMD program surviving this aren't in the realm of possibility.

PD

[subchaser12]

I think the odds of a WMD program surviving this aren't in the realm of possibility.

PD

As this post shows there are still people who believe the WMD lie though, sadly. I learned in school propaganda becomes ineffective as soon as it's discovered but real life experience tells me that isn't always the case.

[Aramike]

Subchaser, I think you're lacking on your history. Saddam actually USED WMDs (which are not neccessarily nukes) on his own people. It was considered genocide by the Human Rights Watch.

Read on for more details.Crap, that totally screwed up my plan. I'm an agnostic too.LOL! :lol:
Ok, this isn't a plot in a James Bond movie. This is a little bit of a stretch.Please tell me you don't mean that smuggling items over a national border is akin to a James Bond movie...

...erm, it happens EVERY SINGLE DAY. Check out this headline: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467307,00.html.

Think about it: for every shipment that IS caught, how many are NOT? And before you delude yourself into thinking that all smuggling operations are broken up, ask yourself why smugglers would continue to engage in the activity if it were doomed?

Now, stretch your mind a little further. If *smugglers* from Peru can smuggle tons of Cocaine across an OCEAN, what is to stop a NATIONAL LEADER from smuggling his goods across his own NATIONAL BORDER?Joe Sixpack might think you can just hammer together a nuke from parts from a junkyard but these are the same people who believed Saddam and Bin Laden went bar hoping together. It just doesn't work this way.

Look at what was left of Saddam's army after desert storm. Crappy T-72s, BMPs, all in disrepair with a poorly trained army. To say they also had a nuke in their arsenal is silly. That would be like finding a Taliban tribe in the mountains of Afghanistan with a stealth bomber in their yard.

How does a country that is in tatters suffering under a decade old and enforced embargo just slap together a nuke? They don't. Also smuggling a nuke out of the country, oh please, if he would have had one he would have used it when the Americans invaded. I mean what else would he possibly be saving it for? That's about as rainy as rainy days get.

Besides, it's so easy to prove we did NOT take out Saddam because he was a dictatot, terrorist or genocidal maniac. Why do we not care about any other genocidal, dictator maniacs in the world? North Korea, Burma or any of the countless African warlords. We only care about the one sitting on the oil field, imagine that. The only two presidents to care about Saddam since he took power in 1979 have been the Bushes. Two Texas OIL men. Imagine that. Funny we weren't in danger any other time except when a Bush was in office.Usually, as I've demonstrated, I try to go point-by-point in a debate. But, I think here you demonstrate yourself to be somewhat less informed than the "Joe Sixpack" you refer to.

No one believed Saddam Hussein had a NUKE!!! (there was a belief that he was pursuing nukes, though...)

WMDs are more than just nuclear weapons. The classification of a WMD includes NBC - nuclear, biological, and CHEMICAL.

We KNOW FOR A FACT that Saddam has had, AND USED chemical weapons in the past, on those within his own borders and Iran. We KNOW that he had significant stockpiles of VX nerve gas, and even used Sarin. By the way, exposure to Sarin in even miniscule amounts can kill a human.

If you don't believe me, and I suspect you won't because it doesn't support your case, click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Honestly, I think you are typical of the far-left wing. You clearly are not well-versed on the subject matter, yet you insist on arguing points that can be PROVEN wrong.

Do yourself and your intellect a favor: step back, get ALL the FACTS, *then* decide what you believe. Don't just drink the koolaid and use the extremists' talking points...

[Aramike]

How does a country that is in tatters suffering under a decade old and enforced embargo just slap together a nuke? They don't. Also smuggling a nuke out of the country, oh please, if he would have had one he would have used it when the Americans invaded. I mean what else would he possibly be saving it for? That's about as rainy as rainy days get.
Calling it an embargo is an understatement. We bombed these people at the drop of a hat for the past decade with a force whose supremacy and effectiveness would make the Eighth Air Force very jealous. I think the odds of a WMD program surviving this aren't in the realm of possibility.

PDWhile I agree with a lot of what you said earlier, I do disagree with this statement. It doesn't take much to produce chemical weapons. In fact, a man in Las Vegas was recently found to have been producing a chemical weapon (I believe it was mustard gas).

[Aramike]

I think the odds of a WMD program surviving this aren't in the realm of possibility.

PD

As this post shows there are still people who believe the WMD lie though, sadly. I learned in school propaganda becomes ineffective as soon as it's discovered but real life experience tells me that isn't always the case.Umm, what WMD lie is that? Saddam Hussein actually USED WMDs...

You didn't know that? :roll:

[subchaser12]

But, I think here you demonstrate yourself to be somewhat less informed than the "Joe Sixpack" you refer to.

No one believed Saddam Hussein had a NUKE!!! (there was a belief that he was pursuing nukes, though...)

WMDs are more than just nuclear weapons. The classification of a WMD includes NBC - nuclear, biological, and CHEMICAL.



Here let me refresh your memory. They were talking about nukes.

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".

Condoleza Rice and Bush, Cheney, Powel etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz_saiaQph0

I know what chemical weapons are. I spent more time than I care to remember in MOPP suits. The WMDs they were refering to were not the chems that got used on the Kurds 20 years ago. Technically the only radioactive material used in Iraq has come from Depleted Uranium from Desert Storm. That's what caused gulf war syndrom. Saw an MP friend of mines kid with my own two eyes at walmart. He has no arms. Just hands at the shoulders.

[subchaser12]

Umm, what WMD lie is that? Saddam Hussein actually USED WMDs...

You didn't know that? :roll:

The lie about the nukes, no one is denying the gas used on the Kurds over 20 years ago. Stay on topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz_saiaQph0

[PeriscopeDepth]

How does a country that is in tatters suffering under a decade old and enforced embargo just slap together a nuke? They don't. Also smuggling a nuke out of the country, oh please, if he would have had one he would have used it when the Americans invaded. I mean what else would he possibly be saving it for? That's about as rainy as rainy days get. Calling it an embargo is an understatement. We bombed these people at the drop of a hat for the past decade with a force whose supremacy and effectiveness would make the Eighth Air Force very jealous. I think the odds of a WMD program surviving this aren't in the realm of possibility.

PDWhile I agree with a lot of what you said earlier, I do disagree with this statement. It doesn't take much to produce chemical weapons. In fact, a man in Las Vegas was recently found to have been producing a chemical weapon (I believe it was mustard gas). They certainly could have. I understand it's physically possible for this to occur. I should have made more clear it is my opinion that there is no way in hell it was possible.

But there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF, even after we've occupied the country for about half a decade. I understand there's room for this possibility, but it is just that. A possibility.

As you said, we'll never really know. But everything we do know suggests Saddam was not actively pursuing a WMD program.

PD

[onelifecrisis]

Saddam Hussein, 1979:
Now listen up, Iraq! You're going to have a new government as specified by me, cos I say so, and I've got lots of guns and will shoot anyone who disagrees with me.

George Bush, 2003:
Now listen up, Iraq! You're going to have a new government as specified by me, cos I say so, and I've got lots of guns and will shoot anyone who disagrees with me.

Tony Blair, 2003:
Yeah! What he said!

[kiwi_2005]

How can ya hate this man :D

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/Kiwi_Frank/1-7.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/Kiwi_Frank/2-6.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/Kiwi_Frank/3-6.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/Kiwi_Frank/4-4.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/Kiwi_Frank/5-5.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/Kiwi_Frank/6-3.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/Kiwi_Frank/7-4.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/Kiwi_Frank/8-3.jpg

[subchaser12]

Saddam Hussein, 1979:
Now listen up, Iraq! You're going to have a new government as specified by me, cos I say so, and I've got lots of guns and will shoot anyone who disagrees with me.

George Bush, 2003:
Now listen up, Iraq! You're going to have a new government as specified by me, cos I say so, and I've got lots of guns and will shoot anyone who disagrees with me.

Tony Blair, 2003:
Yeah! What he said!

The Tony Blair part was funny as hell. Yeah Tony Blair is like the kid that gets his friend to drag him out on a double date to be his wingman but he doesn't want to go.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I'll round off this thread:

Dumbassery: Throwing a shoe
Badassery: Taking a shoe, walking up, and slapping him with it.

This reminds me of when that guy threw an egg at John Prescott and he haymakered him :rotfl:

[Frame57]

That thread sure teached me a lesson: Some people still genuinely don't understand why an Iraqi would want to throw stuff at Bush. I'm flabbergasted.

Ah and another, some people actually rely on US media for information on the middle east. I feel kind of a cultural clash here :DYeah! At least on Al jazeera you get to warch the heads being sawed off. Remember Danny Pearl?

[Frame57]

Did i say "warch"? Damn it, it is too early in the morning to think...

[August]

If I'd throw something at Bush it wouldn't be a shoe. Maybe it'd be what this dude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Arutyunian)threw at Bush, but unfortunately missed.

I'd say throwing a RGD-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGD-5) is less 'childish' than throwing a shoe.

I'm sure we'd be happy to throw the same thing at you...

[August]

Aramike do you believe in god?

Getting desperate?

[Tchocky]

http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/12/16/urgent-just-reported-al-zaidi-in-us-run-camp-cropper-prison/

Hope this is just bad reporting.

[AVGWarhawk]

Anyway, on the way home today I listen to the news. Apparently, not all think the shoe man is a hero.
I'm going to take a really wild guess and assume this was a right wing station? :arrgh!:

Bad guess!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:down: It is straight out of Baltimore MD and as left wing as left wing gets. WBAL 1090. Help yourself:up:

[Aramike]

Umm, what WMD lie is that? Saddam Hussein actually USED WMDs...

You didn't know that? :roll:

The lie about the nukes, no one is denying the gas used on the Kurds over 20 years ago. Stay on topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz_saiaQph0 Did you actually watch the clip? Seemed to me that they all believed that he wanted to get his hands on a nuke but that NONE of them said that he actually had a nuke. Hmm, funny, they didn't find a nuclear weapon in Iraq, and they didn't say that they would either!

They lied!!! Oh, wait, that doesn't make sense...

Funny, also, how in 2004 1.7 tons of nuclear material was removed from Iraq: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

Or, how the Russians are selling nuclear technology to the highest bidder. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm

Do you actually research your opinion or do you count on people posting montages on YouTube to do it for you?

Oh yeah, you're right, Saint Saddam would never want a nuclear weapon! What would a genocidal maniac do with a nuke anyway?

[Mittelwaechter]

For those who are willing to learn...


War Made Easy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afD_liZrubA

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afD_liZrubA)



Why We Fight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm1B7x5JZfE

[AVGWarhawk]

Personally, I think shoe throwing is childish at best....even if it is something done in whatever country to show discontent. Kids throw shoes, not adults. Badass? No! Childish tantrum comes to mind. Would I bite my lip in that situation? No. As a journalist it is time to start asking questions and letting Bush know the general concensus of the people. Not throw a shoe.

Sure, it would be nice to accept some things in the world, however, what makes us individuals is the ability not to accept some things in the world.
You don't really think Bush and his cronies actually have to give answers to tough questions? I mean, they've been there ducking those questions for eight years now, are you saying that they are about to begin to answer those questions? I think this shoe-throwing incident kind of summarizes the feelings of a lot of people especially in the Arab world concerning Bush and his crusades.

I still think it is childish. This opinion soley my own and not representative of SS. :D

[AVGWarhawk]

That thread sure teached me a lesson: Some people still genuinely don't understand why an Iraqi would want to throw stuff at Bush. I'm flabbergasted.

Ah and another, some people actually rely on US media for information on the middle east. I feel kind of a cultural clash here :D
It is not in my nature to throw things at people. Nothing more really. So what is to understand about someone throwing his double pumps at a foreign dignitary? :D So throwing a shoe in Iraq is the way to show discontent. Fine, I still find it childish. In America, things get thrown at the countries leaders. Sometimes the things thrown are lead and hot gunpowder from a rifle. So really, has the middle east cornered the market on shoe throwing? I think he should hook up with Joe the Plumber and make a friggin movie.

[Tchocky]

I doubt many iraqis consider Bush a "dignitary".

So throwing a shoe in Iraq is the way to show discontent. Fine, I still find it childish. In America, things get thrown at the countries leaders. Sometimes the things thrown are lead and hot gunpowder from a rifle.

Quite a bit of lead and gunpowder in Iraq these days. Does this point even need to be made?

edit - ginpowder?

[AVGWarhawk]

I doubt many iraqis consider Bush a "dignitary".

So throwing a shoe in Iraq is the way to show discontent. Fine, I still find it childish. In America, things get thrown at the countries leaders. Sometimes the things thrown are lead and hot gunpowder from a rifle.
Quite a bit of lead and gunpowder in Iraq these days. Does this point even need to be made?

edit - ginpowder?


Does not matter, the shoe thrower is still in trouble for both leaders getting a shoe thrown. Dignitary in name only. I'm sure they think he is a horse butt. The point is, shoes throwing, trash tossing, shooting, shouting matches happen in the entire world for all leaders. Why a set of crappy shoes getting tossed is such a focal point of a forum is astonishing. Does the point of lead and gunpowder in Iraq need to made?

[AVGWarhawk]

AVG, I find it astonishing that you fail to see why this is so discussed :lol:


Yep:lol:. I can understand the Iraq being pissed. I certainly would be. But, it seems to be one of those situations were there is nothing left but "what if's". In other words, what if Sadam was left to run the country? What if we just stayed out of Kuwait being invaded during Bush Sr. term? What if there were WMD found? What if the US just sat on their thumbs after the 9/11 attacks? What if the US just closed the borders and anything that happens around the globe is their problem? Like most things in life, you are only as good as what you did 5 minutes ago.

[She-Wolf]

we are not about to come to blows over this ARE we boys... me, I am English and know nothing of these things ( get back to your kitchen woman), but I look at Bush and I see a man trying to put a brave face on despite whatever he feels like inside. Heck - how would you behave if you were in his place? ( second thoughts, don't answer that - I am going back to the kitchen!)

[AVGWarhawk]

we are not about to come to blows over this ARE we boys... me, I am English and know nothing of these things ( get back to your kitchen woman), but I look at Bush and I see a man trying to put a brave face on despite whatever he feels like inside. Heck - how would you behave if you were in his place? ( second thoughts, don't answer that - I am going back to the kitchen!)

What's cooking? :D

[She-Wolf]

well.. I do a mean spag bol....:D

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7785338.stm

[OneToughHerring]

Hitler was more or less democratically elected, so were a lot of leaders. What exactly is your criteria for leaders who are beyond criticism and who are not?You may want to read up on your history, buddy. Hitler was APPOINTED chancellor then, upon the death of the German president, APPOINTED HIMSELF as Furher, disbanded the office of the German President, siezed full power over German government, and OUTLAWED opposing political parties, through his cabinet.

A little different than democratically-elected, I would say...

Furthermore, criticism and advocating assassination are two VERY, VERY different things.

So annihilating an entire culture or should I say cultures and waging wars throughout history is somehow different from what Hitler did? The national socialists rose to power through elections and subsequently took over completely, albeit helped by their business friends but hey, that's allowed, right?

I still don't quite understand the difference between what is seen as appropriate criticism and what isn't. You don't want people trying to assassinate you? Don't go starting genocidal wars around the planet. And by the way, I'm not saying this just about Bush but whoever happens to be leader of US. It also seems like the president isn't the one with the real power over there, the real power lies somewhere behind the throne.

[August]

You don't want people trying to assassinate you? Don't go starting genocidal wars around the planet.
You certainly don't have to start a war to be targeted by an assassin. Take John Lennon for example...

In any case regardless of how much you hate Bush or any of his predecessors you'd be hard pressed to define any of our recent wars as "genocidal".

[Aramike]

So annihilating an entire culture or should I say cultures and waging wars throughout history is somehow different from what Hitler did? I find it humorous when people like you debate. It's always with broad strokes, it seems, never allowing facts to gum things up.

What cultures did the US annihilate?

I seem to remember Saddam Hussein trying to gas and annihilate the Kurds, but I can't seem to find anything about the US trying to wipe out and culture or race.The national socialists rose to power through elections and subsequently took over completely, albeit helped by their business friends but hey, that's allowed, right?How a sovereign nation rules is up to them. It's only when they start breaking international laws (Geneva Convention, and such) that other nations are compelled to act.

The wholesale slaugther of Jews is far and away different than anything the US has ever engaged in, although I know you wish that weren't true. Furthermore, Hitler's Germany's military buildup was ILLEGAL and AGAINST a treaty that the nation signed after WWI. I'm pretty sure the US has done nothing similar.I still don't quite understand the difference between what is seen as appropriate criticism and what isn't. Umm, then you just don't get it. Criticism about anything you want is fine by me. Go nuts. Keep pulling your arguments from the far-left talking points. Whatever you want.

Assassination is something entirely different. It is completely devoid of argument.You don't want people trying to assassinate you? Don't go starting genocidal wars around the planet. You DO know what GENOCIDE means, right?

There ARE genocidal wars going on throughout the world right now. If you actually CARE about genocide (and stopping it), why aren't you railing out against those? Why, instead, do you choose to speak out against the United States who, by all ACTUAL measurements, is NOT involved in a genocidal war?

OOOH... I know this one! Because its COOL to hate the US! It's CHIC! No one is really going to care if you hate some African regime, right? But if you speak out against the Evil, Evil Bush, you can incite people and make yourself feel relevent without actually needing a basis in fact! You KNOW that there are others out there, just like you, beating the war drums of Bush and US hatred, who are blind to any truth but the one that supports their anger.

Probably makes you feel big, doesn't it? Well, knock yourself out. Bush hasn't been assassinated and is peacefully leaving office, as all US presidents do when their terms are up.And by the way, I'm not saying this just about Bush but whoever happens to be leader of US. It also seems like the president isn't the one with the real power over there, the real power lies somewhere behind the throne.Whoops. Nevermind. I've accidently stumbled into the looney house... :doh: :rotfl: :roll:

[Aramike]

You don't want people trying to assassinate you? Don't go starting genocidal wars around the planet.
You certainly don't have to start a war to be targeted by an assassin. Take John Lennon for example...

In any case regardless of how much you hate Bush or any of his predecessors you'd be hard pressed to define any of our recent wars as "genocidal".You know as well as I do that this has never been about anything the US or Bush has actually done. This is about hatred, plain and simple. People will say and do anything to justify their hate. Some people even create a hatred in order to be the "cool" one in the argument.

It's like the protester that protests because his buddies are doing it. Armed with YouTube clips and scatterred talking points, he can't let reality get in the way because then it wouldn't make sense to protest with his buddies. So he holds up his sign, chants his vitriol, all the while blissfully ignorant of reality and the shades of gray.

I just find it ironic how those who protest loudest never seem to have a solution for anything.

[August]

It's like the protester that protests because his buddies are doing it.

Reminds me of the 1960's protests always ending before 5pm so the protesters can get home in time to watch themselves on TV... :D

[OneToughHerring]

What cultures did the US annihilate?
The whole country was founded on a genocidal agenda, starting with the destruction of the indiginous people. Since then it's been the same agenda everywhere else, a war or two in progress for more or less shoddy reasons. US has always based it's wars on lies, the present war in Iraq is just a continuation of this trend. War is the objective of US, politics, economy, etc. are just means to achieve that end.

War is also an extension of politics. US will go to war when it thinks it has to. It will naturally sugarcoat the wars and give all kinds of reasons for them, lie if must. Once they get the war in motion it doesn't really matter if they lied or not. Who's going to prosecute them and in what court?

I seem to remember Saddam Hussein trying to gas and annihilate the Kurds, but I can't seem to find anything about the US trying to wipe out and culture or race.
Find a list of wars fought by either US and it's proxies and add up the bodycount. Also add the effects of US global policies like not contributing to aid programs by the UN. The effects of such politics and war together go well beyond the immediate body count, for example the present war in Iraq has caused millions of refugees, many of them in my country Finland.

How a sovereign nation rules is up to them. It's only when they start breaking international laws (Geneva Convention, and such) that other nations are compelled to act.
Yes but what happens when you're exempted from those rules, like the US pretty much is? Nobody ruled against the nazis in nazi Germany or in the territories that they controlled, same with US. Only people the US decides should be prosecuted are prosecuted. The rest are allowed to get away and naturally get a safe haven in either US or possibly nearby like South America where many nazis hid after WW2. Btw it was US organisations who helped the nazis hide there after WW2.

The wholesale slaugther of Jews is far and away different than anything the US has ever engaged in,
Oh the others didn't matter, right? The only crime the nazis committed was killing the Jews. Imagine if they'd just the left the Jews alone and killed off the Romani people, handicapped, socialists, Eastern-Europeans, gays, political unwanted etc. You'd still be clapping for them, right?

although I know you wish that weren't true. Furthermore, Hitler's Germany's military buildup was ILLEGAL and AGAINST a treaty that the nation signed after WWI. I'm pretty sure the US has done nothing similar.
Military buildup was illegal? Interesting that there should be such a thing as legal military buildup. Completely legit nukes. Hell, even legal ABC-weapons. Oh yea, US has them, and some of it's allies too.

Assassination is something entirely different. It is completely devoid of argument.
US has always been involved in assassination operations. Why does it get so scared when it's leaders are similarily the target of attacks? Because it means that folks around the planet don't like you? Well that's just how things are with US being the most hated nation in the world, so get used to it.

You DO know what GENOCIDE means, right?

There ARE genocidal wars going on throughout the world right now.
Which ones?

If you actually CARE about genocide (and stopping it), why aren't you railing out against those? Why, instead, do you choose to speak out against the United States who, by all ACTUAL measurements, is NOT involved in a genocidal war?

OOOH... I know this one! Because its COOL to hate the US! It's CHIC! No one is really going to care if you hate some African regime, right? But if you speak out against the Evil, Evil Bush, you can incite people and make yourself feel relevent without actually needing a basis in fact! You KNOW that there are others out there, just like you, beating the war drums of Bush and US hatred, who are blind to any truth but the one that supports their anger.

Probably makes you feel big, doesn't it? Well, knock yourself out. Bush hasn't been assassinated and is peacefully leaving office, as all US presidents do when their terms are up.
Yes I know what genocide means, do you? Why should I especially hate some African nation? You have a problem with Africa? Please tell me what African nation do you have in mind as an especially good target of my 'hate'?

You think Bush will vanish from the face of the planet after he steps down from office? I'd say he'll be much more likely a target of even more significant attempts then the previous ones pretty much as long as he lives. Also Obama will be the target of attempts and in a way 'inherit' Bush's bad reputation and the overall bad reputation of the whole of US which is getting worse all the time.

And all this without including the home-grown nuts like KKK-folks and the like, these folks will be mighty pissed to see a black man as president.

Whoops. Nevermind. I've accidently stumbled into the looney house... :doh: :rotfl: :roll:
Ad hominem, very classy.

[August]

Onetoughherring, only you could call the US effort in WW1 and WW2 "genocide". By your definition the Finns are just as guilty of genocide because of the huge body count they created amongst Soviet Russians. :roll:

It is becoming quite obvious that there is no line you will not cross to express your hatred of my country, so how long will it be before you go from anonymous internet sniping to real life action?

[heartc]

It always keeps amazing me how decent and friendly Americans stay when attacked with outragous, unfounded and phantastic accusations. I tend to see that as a weakness. As in, don't try to discuss and find decency in those who would like to see you destroyed. But then, on the other hand, this is what makes the difference between the US and other, former, superpowers, like the Romans. And this is also what allowed for a revival of my country, yet again, and also brought a lasting peace to Europe after WWII, after centuries of warfare between the European Nations. Yes, the lasting peaces in Europe, since over 60 years now, is mostly the direct result of US foreign policy. And this in front of yet another totalitarian system, the USSR. Yeah, America really is inexperienced, unsophisticated and the electorate dumb, right? They lack the sophistication of the Europeans that were good at waging wars against each other for centuries. All the time lecturing America in a condescending way. If this board was run by me, and not an American, I would prolly have banned about 50% of the people here. They are condemning America in the most irrational ways and for the most phantastic heresay, through an American OS, American computer technology, an American invention (called the internet), as members of free societies, which for the most are born #or kept# out of the American intervention in WWII, and kept alive by that same nation in the face of Stalin and his successors for decades.

These are the facts. And I'm not stating them because we should lick Americas boots or would owe them eternal gratefullness. We all live in souvereign nations. I'm stating them because I keep being disgusted by the constant childish tantrums and accusations being thrown at the US, from a moral high ground wholly unfounded, and often in such an irrational manner that Goebbels probably couldn't have worded them any better (google "America as a perversion of European culture"). Not I'm dishonoring my country when I critizise that, but you are dishonoring your country when you constantly feel the need to insult and lecture the country where your host here is coming from. Shoot G.W.Bush because he's the same as Hitler? Give me a ****ing break.

Damn, I would have written a lot more over the last few weeks when I read all that ****. There were only two things that held me back: For one, that I have to insert each free space between words through copy and past, since my space key went non#functional, and the fact that in the end, it is pretty much pointless to debate with brick walls.

[heartc]

It always keeps amazing me how decent and friendly Americans stay when attacked with outragous, unfounded and phantastic accusations. I tend to see that as a weakness. As in, don't try to discuss and find decency in those who would like to see you destroyed. But then, on the other hand, this is what makes the difference between the US and other, former, superpowers, like the Romans. And this is also what allowed for a revival of my country, yet again, and also brought a lasting peace to Europe after WWII, after centuries of warfare between the European Nations. Yes, the lasting peace in Europe, since over 60 years now, is mostly the direct result of US foreign policy. And this in front of yet another totalitarian system, the USSR. Yeah, America really is inexperienced, unsophisticated and the electorate dumb, right? They lack the sophistication of the Europeans that were good at waging wars against each other for centuries. All the time lecturing America in a condescending way. If this board was run by me, and not an American, I would prolly have banned about 50% of the people here. They are condemning America in the most irrational ways and for the most phantastic heresay, through an American OS, American computer technology, an American invention (called the internet), as members of free societies, which for the most are born #or kept# out of the American intervention in WWII, and kept alive by that same nation in the face of Stalin and his successors for decades.

These are the facts. And I'm not stating them because we should lick Americas boots or would owe them eternal gratefullness. We all live in souvereign nations. I'm stating them because I keep being disgusted by the constant childish tantrums and accusations being thrown at the US, from a moral high ground wholly unfounded, and often in such an irrational manner that Goebbels probably couldn't have worded them any better (google "America as a perversion of European culture"). Not I'm dishonoring my country when I critizise that, but you are dishonoring your country when you constantly feel the need to insult and lecture the country where your host here is coming from. Shoot G.W.Bush because he's the same as Hitler? Give me a ****ing break.

Damn, I would have written a lot more over the last few weeks when I read all that ****. There were only two things that held me back: For one, that I have to insert each free space between words through copy and past, since my space key went non#functional, and the fact that in the end, it is pretty much pointless to debate with brick walls.

[subchaser12]

They lied!!! Oh, wait, that doesn't make sense...

Oh yeah, you're right, Saint Saddam would never want a nuclear weapon! What would a genocidal maniac do with a nuke anyway?

Of course it makes sense. The neocons wanted their war in Iraq so they lied to get it. The lied and said Saddam was going to nuke us. They lied and said Saddam and Al Queada were training together at their secret terrorist training base in Iraq. They lied and tied Saddam and 9/11 together. They lied and used fear to get the support for the war they have wanted since the 1990s. Saddam did a better job of controlling terrorists than America.

Years later when all these lies have been exposed the now ever changing reason is "oh well Saddam was a bad guy anyway".

Sure Saddam might want a nuke, I also want a solid gold rocket ship for Christmas, I'm not anywhere close to getting one now am I.

I'm amazed to find an intelligent adult that still thinks Bush, Cheney, Powel and Condi Rice were all telling the truth. Wake up man.

[Mittelwaechter]

We are all of the same kind - all brothers and sisters - and we should care for each other and for the spaceship we are travelling on. We all do have the same rights to live, no matter under wich political system we are born. Think about being born in Basra instead of St.Louis. It's pure coincidence.

Why do we think we have the right - or even gods mandate - to kill innocent people in the name of freedom and democracy? We decide who of them will survive our struggle for freedom and democracy?

Why do we have to kill thousands and thousands of people if we want to get rid of one dictator?

Is it foolish to engage a multi billion dollar war-machinery to hunt down one man on a donkey? For how many years now? And what are the results?

How much is an American life? As much as an Afghan? Bin Laden could have payed 5000 x 200 bucks = 1 000 000 to equal the casualties of 9/11?

Could we make friends around the globe with an investment of 720 million dollars - a day? (!)

Would we agree with a foreign force ruling in the USA, trying to insist on us to live their way of life?

Assume some western terrorists have blown up the Beijing Emperors Palace and killed 5000 people. The Chinese can prove some Ex Navy Seals were amongst those terrorists and now they call the US the Kingdom of Evil, breeding terrorists and providing help for them. Additionally they have proof of WMDs in the US and they strongly believe the US government is willing to declare war on any nation at any time for any reason.
Would we agree to let them bomb Las Vegas, Boston and Washington into dust? Their soldiers in our streets controlling people and houses, frighten our children to death and killing some of our neighbours? Let's say - roughly 400 000 US casualties - oh - including our parents.
Surely we would understand that our way of living is wrong and the chinese politics of caring for all belongings of their folks is way better and adorable. They care for never breeding any terrorists.

We would love to see 'Ching Pong', the chinese leader having a bye-bye visit with our new president - who was instated by Mr. Pong - at a press conference. Our press would ask Mr. Pong some questions and everybody would stay calm and nice?

:nope:

We could argue forever and would not come to a common conclusion.

We see the world not as it is but as we are. Truth is an interpretation.


At the end of the day the solution to all our problems is less greed and more education.

[heartc]

###

[heartc]

double post

[heartc]

sry,forallthemultiposts,somethingwentwronghere.wan tedtocorrectafewspellingerrorsandusedlotsofcopyand pastbecuaseofmyhalfinoperablekeyboard.

[AVGWarhawk]

@heartc

Like most things in life, you are only as good as what you did 5 minutes ago. Same goes for this deal in Iraq. Currently only American's crap stinks. -Shrug- Everyone else smells like roses. Nice thoughts in your writing. :up:

Maybe closing the borders of the US and letting everyone figure it out for themselves would be the best course of action.

[August]

Maybe closing the borders of the US and letting everyone figure it out for themselves would be the best course of action.

It's folks like HeartC and some of my German cousins that keeps me from seriously wishing for that very thing.

[heartc]

"Please stop playing the victim, the topic is about Iraq so yeah most likely people including me will bitch on the US admnistration and rightly so. Open a thread on Chad and we'll bitch on France if you like."


OK, so let's discuss. Removing the dictator Saddam Hussein from power after 9/11, who developed and used WMDs at least in the past, was an open enemy of the US since the 90s and repeatedly broke the cease fire by shooting at US planes, was a good thing. End of story.

Now, if you want to discuss about the islamists terrorizing and blowing up mostly innocent civilians in Iraq after the combat operations ended in 2003, discuss it with the Iranian mullahs and their lapdogs.

Truth is, you don't give a damn about Iraq or the people there. All you want to do is piss on the US out of an inferiority complex, and for that you will use any straw you can get your hands on, any time.

[baggygreen]

I have often wondered how long will it be before the US adopts an isolationist policy again. They can afford to, with ease.

In many ways it could be a good thing. In others, I suspect it won't be. How many conflicts have been averted, and how many others cut short, by the threat of a big stick coming crashing down on the aggressor's heads? Truthfully we won't ever know. I can tell you one though, in Europe following WW2. Of course, without the US there you'd all be praising comrade Joe as your liberator from the oppressions of capitalism.

I'm not a yank, i take the p!ss out of them any opportunity I get, and they've got many policies both internal and foreign I disagree with. But it irks me the way people today can take take take but still be so ungrateful.

- Protestors organising rallies against all things american on cell phones, the tech for which was developed and made available to consumers by.... the americans!

- Islamic militants using computers and the web to get their message of hatred against all things western out to people. Hang on, computers? Aren't they western, made possible and available by..... the americans?

- Anybody complaining about nuclear weapons and the sheer number the US has, without realising that without them, Europe would be smoking ruins. The only thing stopping a war in Europe following WW2 were the nukes.

They are but 3 things I can't stand.

The US isn't perfect. no one and no thing is perfect. Like it or not, they've done a lot of good thigns for a mob of ungrateful arseholes over the past 50-odd years, much more good than harm.

For the case in point, our friend the journalist, the mere fact he CAN throw a shoe at a world leader and have both him and his family escape with their lives shows that this man and society he espouses to hate so much has improved things.

[Frame57]

It is a difficult premise to be certain. I like the idea of America becoming more Isolationist, but I think it is a two edged sword and something would brew on an epic scale worldwide. Being as involved in world affairs acts like a relief valve in some ways which hopefully keeps things like WW1 and WW2 from repeating themselves only with NBC weapons being deployed by many nations.

[YukonJack_AK]

From a guy who spent 90% of his military career overseas carrying a weapon in 'war-torn' locales (1 tour each in Kosovo & Afghanistan and 2 in Iraq)... I find the arguements here without a whole lot of basis. :hmm: Yes the Bush administration has GRAVELY 'screwed the pooch' on many occasions... but is the US and the US Armed Forces to blame for this? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! The US has been and still is a place that many people from around the world dream of coming to... my grandfather for one, a former German officer left after the war to settle in Wisconsin. In my travels to the Balkans and the Middle East, many people wanted to sit down and just ask me about my home. So please don't blame the US for what one idiot has done.

A few side notes - just from personal observation...

a. We didn't KILL a lot of people at all in Iraq - most of them surrendered without so much as a shot.
b. Yes Saddam was a horrible dictator... He needed to go. Period. Even with all the BS over there... it's still a MUCH better Iraq now. Whether or not he had WMDs... well lets just say that Bush didn't need to lie.
c. Genocide is such a radical term that gets thrown around alot these days... does killing 1 million people make you a bad person... or what about just 1.
d. The Afghan war is OUR fault... we helped them against the Soviets then left them high and dry after it was all over. The Soviets pulled out and left nothing but chaos behind... they weren't fighting the Soviets anymore - so we stopped caring.
e. The next administration need to set precedent and adopt an attitude realizing that we are not the Worlds police/caretaker... if the problem becomes bad enough, then sure but you can't keep doing it for them. Sometime they have to learn for themselves.

Just food for thought... :hmm:

[Skybird]

I have often wondered how long will it be before the US adopts an isolationist policy again. They can afford to, with ease.


No they can't, to assume that is completely unrealistic. Neither their economy nor finance system allows that, not their energy hunger and not their dependence on foreign ressources and goods, and the globalisation, a project planned and launched in the US, also is against that. Isolationism for the US would simply mean national suicide in the modern present: the costs by far outweigh the gains of an isolationist attitude.

[A Very Super Market]

World's policeman? Sounds suspiciously similar to another American....
http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/judge10.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

I have often wondered how long will it be before the US adopts an isolationist policy again. They can afford to, with ease.


No they can't, to assume that is completely unrealistic. Neither their economy nor finance system allows that, not their energy hunger and not their dependence on foreign ressources and goods, and the globalisation, a project planned and launched in the US, also is against that. Isolationism for the US would simply mean national suicide in the modern present: the costs by far outweigh the gains of an isolationist attitude.

Skybird is correct here. We are to intertwined and have grown to dependent. American has created all of this and must live by it. But, hey, the world can throw a shoe at us as we deploy more humanitarian relief to those around the world in need. :dead: Oh, never mind, I do not what to be the victim. Hmmmm....if that is the case, I guess my hard earned tax dollars should stop supporting it. Oh wait, I have no choice. Nevermind. We can not play the victim anyway, France has that roll already.

[AVGWarhawk]

Please stop playing the victim, the topic is about Iraq so yeah most likely people including me will bitch on the US admnistration and rightly so. Open a thread on Chad and we'll bitch on France if you like :up:

What happened in Chad?:hmm:

[August]

We are to intertwined and have grown to dependent. American has created all of this and must live by it.

For now, but I think that if we can intertwine then we can also disengage. Not immediately and not without some pain of course, but it could be done if we have the will. I just think it would be prudent to work towards making our nation, our continent and our hemisphere as self sufficient as possible.

[caspofungin]

@baggygreen

you'd have to be pretty ignorant to ignore the positive contributions that the us has made to the world in all matter of things. in my limited experience, people have nothing against americans individually but a great deal against the policies that their government promotes. but i think what irks people the most is the double standards that are continually expressed by various administrations.

to get back on topic, a pair of shoes was thrown at GWB.

[Frame57]

From a guy who spent 90% of his military career overseas carrying a weapon in 'war-torn' locales (1 tour each in Kosovo & Afghanistan and 2 in Iraq)... I find the arguements here without a whole lot of basis. :hmm: Yes the Bush administration has GRAVELY 'screwed the pooch' on many occasions... but is the US and the US Armed Forces to blame for this? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! The US has been and still is a place that many people from around the world dream of coming to... my grandfather for one, a former German officer left after the war to settle in Wisconsin. In my travels to the Balkans and the Middle East, many people wanted to sit down and just ask me about my home. So please don't blame the US for what one idiot has done.

A few side notes - just from personal observation...

a. We didn't KILL a lot of people at all in Iraq - most of them surrendered without so much as a shot.
b. Yes Saddam was a horrible dictator... He needed to go. Period. Even with all the BS over there... it's still a MUCH better Iraq now. Whether or not he had WMDs... well lets just say that Bush didn't need to lie.
c. Genocide is such a radical term that gets thrown around alot these days... does killing 1 million people make you a bad person... or what about just 1.
d. The Afghan war is OUR fault... we helped them against the Soviets then left them high and dry after it was all over. The Soviets pulled out and left nothing but chaos behind... they weren't fighting the Soviets anymore - so we stopped caring.
e. The next administration need to set precedent and adopt an attitude realizing that we are not the Worlds police/caretaker... if the problem becomes bad enough, then sure but you can't keep doing it for them. Sometime they have to learn for themselves.

Just food for thought... :hmm:Agreed 100%

[A Very Super Market]

@baggygreen

you'd have to be pretty ignorant to ignore the positive contributions that the us has made to the world in all matter of things. in my limited experience, people have nothing against americans individually but a great deal against the policies that their government promotes. but i think what irks people the most is the double standards that are continually expressed by various administrations.

to get back on topic, a pair of shoes was thrown at GWB.

Good god, thats what started this whole thing!!!:doh:

[subchaser12]

From a guy who spent 90% of his military career overseas carrying a weapon in 'war-torn' locales (1 tour each in Kosovo & Afghanistan and 2 in Iraq)...

Don't feel bad, the rest of us haven't seen combat either for the most part.

[AVGWarhawk]

@baggygreen

you'd have to be pretty ignorant to ignore the positive contributions that the us has made to the world in all matter of things. in my limited experience, people have nothing against americans individually but a great deal against the policies that their government promotes. but i think what irks people the most is the double standards that are continually expressed by various administrations.

to get back on topic, a pair of shoes was thrown at GWB.
Good god, thats what started this whole thing!!!:doh:

Of all things....a shoe:roll: or shoes as it were.

[Letum]

Please stop playing the victim, the topic is about Iraq so yeah most likely people including me will bitch on the US admnistration and rightly so. Open a thread on Chad and we'll bitch on France if you like :up:
What happened in Chad?:hmm:

Chad is a mystery to me too.
I would have chosen the way the French gave the Ivory Coast independence, but
continue to cream the profits off businesses in the Ivory Coast and send over 'peace
keeping' forces every time the pro-French government looks like losing power. It is
ridiculous that the UN should send a nation with so much bias from it's vested interests
to peace keep.

[Aramike]

I was originally getting very bored with this debate, but this stuff is too laughably rich in absurdity, I can't help myself.The whole country was founded on a genocidal agenda, starting with the destruction of the indiginous people. Since then it's been the same agenda everywhere else, a war or two in progress for more or less shoddy reasons. US has always based it's wars on lies, the present war in Iraq is just a continuation of this trend. War is the objective of US, politics, economy, etc. are just means to achieve that end. That's as ridiculous as it is absurd. Most major nations and almost all current world governments find their basis in war and displacement. In some cases it's worked out for the best. In others, not so much.

In the case of the US, the MOST GENEROUS nation on the planet along with being the most powerful, I say it's worked out for the best.War is also an extension of politics. US will go to war when it thinks it has to. It will naturally sugarcoat the wars and give all kinds of reasons for them, lie if must. Once they get the war in motion it doesn't really matter if they lied or not. Who's going to prosecute them and in what court?Every other nation with the means does the same thing. Except ... none of you wacko-lefties has yet to demonstrate FACTUALLY a lie the US told regarding Iraq...

It all comes back to that. It's fun watching people believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts they are faced with. The Flat Earth people are looking for recruits, you know...Find a list of wars fought by either US and it's proxies and add up the bodycount. Also add the effects of US global policies like not contributing to aid programs by the UN. The effects of such politics and war together go well beyond the immediate body count, for example the present war in Iraq has caused millions of refugees, many of them in my country Finland.Yeah, ignore the fact that the US was BROUGHT INTO War War I against its wishes, as well as WWII. So, we won't count those....

...hmmm, the body count seems comparatively small when stacked against other nations. ESPECIALLY in the 20th century, and considering that the US remains the sole world superpower...Yes but what happens when you're exempted from those rules, like the US pretty much is? Nobody ruled against the nazis in nazi Germany or in the territories that they controlled, same with US. Only people the US decides should be prosecuted are prosecuted. The rest are allowed to get away and naturally get a safe haven in either US or possibly nearby like South America where many nazis hid after WW2. Btw it was US organisations who helped the nazis hide there after WW2. Yes, the US hid certain Nazi scientists ... and by doing so, helped develop weaponry the created the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) thereby ensuring that not a single nuclear weapon has been used in war since WWII. I wonder how many millions of lives these decisions have saved.

Furthermore, even in this decade the US has EXPELLED members of the Nazi party from its borders when they are discovered. Doesn't seem very Nazi-sympathetic to me...

And, you should really read up on Nuremberg. The US wasn't the ones who decided who went on trial - at least not alone. France, the UK, and the USSR had equal input.

To further illustrate the absurdity of this wacky "US RULES ALL" argument, the US (that's right, the United States) Supreme Court did not believe in the validity of the Nuremberg trials, but could do nothing about it because it was OUT OF THEIR JURISDICTION.

How can something be out of reach of a government that is unchecked, as you claim?Oh the others didn't matter, right? The only crime the nazis committed was killing the Jews. Imagine if they'd just the left the Jews alone and killed off the Romani people, handicapped, socialists, Eastern-Europeans, gays, political unwanted etc. You'd still be clapping for them, right? Clapping for who? The Nazis who I've condemned?

Just because I don't list every single crime that a regime has committed doesn't mean I think they are any less heinous. It merely means that the single crime that I mention is adequate to convey my point.

Is this really THAT hard???

Oh yeah, what about the millions of Russians? Are you still clapping for them?Military buildup was illegal? Interesting that there should be such a thing as legal military buildup. Completely legit nukes. Hell, even legal ABC-weapons. Oh yea, US has them, and some of it's allies too. Yes, military build-up is legal. Just because you don't LIKE it, doesn't mean it's not a smart thing for most nations to do.

Germany, however, signed into a treaty barring them from certain levels of military build up.

I know in your little perfect utopian vision, weapons would never be neccessary and we'd all hold hands and sing Koombayah, but that simply isn't how the world works. We have thousands of years of human history proving that.US has always been involved in assassination operations.Ah, yes, another broad claim with NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE to support it.

What leaders has the US assassinated? Huh? Which ones? Anybody? ANYBODY?

Siddown.

Oh, and by the way, the US has a POLICY the forbids the assassination of foreign leaders. It is a poor political tool to begin with. There's a reason the Castro, Hugo Chavez, etc, haven't been killed like ... wait, I STILL can't think of any leaders the US has assassinated!

Nice try with more fiction... :rotfl: Why does it get so scared when it's leaders are similarily the target of attacks? Because it means that folks around the planet don't like you? Well that's just how things are with US being the most hated nation in the world, so get used to it. Try not to confuse "fear" with "outrage". The rest of the world can hate us all they want. They're just jealous. In any case, I'll remember their hatred next time there's a major disaster and they want my money. Furthermore, I am used to the US not being liked. And I'm quite proud of the fact that we just don't care. We continue being a democratic nation and the world's sole superpower. Even our poorest have access to clean water, and most of them even have color televisions. I'm not going to feel bad because my country is a successful one. Sure, we have our struggles but hey - we've done well so far...
Which ones?Start in the Congo and move to Darfur.Yes I know what genocide means, do you? Why should I especially hate some African nation? You have a problem with Africa? Please tell me what African nation do you have in mind as an especially good target of my 'hate'?How about those involved in bloody, genocidal wars?You think Bush will vanish from the face of the planet after he steps down from office? I'd say he'll be much more likely a target of even more significant attempts then the previous ones pretty much as long as he lives. Also Obama will be the target of attempts and in a way 'inherit' Bush's bad reputation and the overall bad reputation of the whole of US which is getting worse all the time. Assassins typically look to influence current events, not exact some perverse retribution. I highly doubt Bush will be in greater danger upon leaving office.And all this without including the home-grown nuts like KKK-folks and the like, these folks will be mighty pissed to see a black man as president.Those nuts we similarly pissed with a black Secretary of State, a hispanic Attorney General, etc. Their anger is forged from stupidity - I find it hard to believe that people that incredibly dense would be able to assassinate the president.Ad hominem, very classy.Not trying to be class, just to present an honest opinion forged in actual facts.

To me, what is NOT classy is making things up to support bogus claims.

[Jimbuna]

It's nearly Xmas folks....would someone be kind enough to throw a full pair of shoes at me.....european size 10 if possible. http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2822/yawnbigji2wt7.gif

[AVGWarhawk]

It's nearly Xmas folks....would someone be kind enough to throw a full pair of shoes at me.....european size 10 if possible. http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2822/yawnbigji2wt7.gif

That all depends Jim. Do you have anything to do with Iraq? :rotfl: If so, would you like a leather upper or will a canvas upper do? Prefer a hard sole or soft sole shoe? If we are going to do it, we might as well do it right.

[Jimbuna]

It's nearly Xmas folks....would someone be kind enough to throw a full pair of shoes at me.....european size 10 if possible. http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2822/yawnbigji2wt7.gif

That all depends Jim. Do you have anything to do with Iraq? :rotfl: If so, would you like a leather upper or will a canvas upper do? Prefer a hard sole or soft sole shoe? If we are going to do it, we might as well do it right.

Not really fussy....just so long as they're free. :lol:

I met a bloke the other day who was half American and half Iraqi.

He was his own worst enemy. ;)

[AVGWarhawk]

hehe good one:rotfl:

[OneToughHerring]

That's as ridiculous as it is absurd. Most major nations and almost all current world governments find their basis in war and displacement. In some cases it's worked out for the best. In others, not so much.

In the case of the US, the MOST GENEROUS nation on the planet along with being the most powerful, I say it's worked out for the best.

Well it certainly is very generous in starting the most wars of all nations in the world. It also consumes the most amount of non-renewable resources. And contributes most to the destruction of rainforests which pretty much is a non-renewable as well since those forests once down will stay gone.

Every other nation with the means does the same thing. Except ... none of you wacko-lefties has yet to demonstrate FACTUALLY a lie the US told regarding Iraq...

Weapons of mass destruction, for starters.

Are you saying that there will be some kind of a retroactive war crimes tribunal concerning US and it's criminal war in Iraq?

It all comes back to that. It's fun watching people believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts they are faced with. The Flat Earth people are looking for recruits, you know...

You have plenty of those in US, along with your religious fanatics who have a problem with, among other things, evolution and want to spread christian propaganda everywhere.

Jehova's Witnesses, an aggressive Christian sect from US. The Mormons, pretty much the same. Christian Identity, the base for a lot of US racist ideologies. The evangelists and various other loonies. And don't get me started on Scientology...

Yeah, ignore the fact that the US was BROUGHT INTO War War I against its wishes, as well as WWII. So, we won't count those....

Of course we will, nobody asked the US to kill millions of Japanese civilians with indiscriminate bombings against civilian targets. And the same with Germans. And the use of poison gas in WW I wasn't so noble either.

And of course the Vietnam War was an epoch in itself when it comes to US war crimes gone unpunished, and even unchecked.


...hmmm, the body count seems comparatively small when stacked against other nations. ESPECIALLY in the 20th century, and considering that the US remains the sole world superpower...

What list are you looking at? A link, per chance?

Yes, the US hid certain Nazi scientists ... and by doing so, helped develop weaponry the created the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) thereby ensuring that not a single nuclear weapon has been used in war since WWII. I wonder how many millions of lives these decisions have saved.

Not many in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Furthermore, even in this decade the US has EXPELLED members of the Nazi party from its borders when they are discovered. Doesn't seem very Nazi-sympathetic to me...

And, you should really read up on Nuremberg. The US wasn't the ones who decided who went on trial - at least not alone. France, the UK, and the USSR had equal input.

Actually the Soviets had their own courts where they laid down more severe punishments. They 're-hired' very few ex-nazis, unlike the US and it's Nato-alliance members including West-Germany.

To further illustrate the absurdity of this wacky "US RULES ALL" argument, the US (that's right, the United States) Supreme Court did not believe in the validity of the Nuremberg trials, but could do nothing about it because it was OUT OF THEIR JURISDICTION.

The judgements meted out at the Nurnberg trials were quite lenient, and often it was US and the British who were calling for this leniency. US was also responsible for protecting the stolen nazi gold in Swiss banks and the companies who got rich with slave labour etc. during the war.

Clapping for who? The Nazis who I've condemned?

Just because I don't list every single crime that a regime has committed doesn't mean I think they are any less heinous. It merely means that the single crime that I mention is adequate to convey my point.

Is this really THAT hard???

Oh yeah, what about the millions of Russians? Are you still clapping for them?

You mean Soviets? Oh yes, I feel very bad for their deaths. Do you feel bad for the deaths of the groups I mentioned?

Yes, military build-up is legal. Just because you don't LIKE it, doesn't mean it's not a smart thing for most nations to do.

Germany, however, signed into a treaty barring them from certain levels of military build up.

Ok so whoever doesn't sign papers of that type is free to do whatever, have as many nukes, ABC, etc. Every type of weapons program imaginable.

I know in your little perfect utopian vision, weapons would never be neccessary and we'd all hold hands and sing Koombayah, but that simply isn't how the world works. We have thousands of years of human history proving that.

But only certain weapons for certain countries? And who decides what weapons for what countries?

Ah, yes, another broad claim with NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE to support it.

What leaders has the US assassinated? Huh? Which ones? Anybody? ANYBODY?

Too many to name. Are you really denying that US engages in assassination programs and has done so since day one? Or even before that, counting the murders of the various chiefs of the various indigineous tribes.

Oh, and by the way, the US has a POLICY

Sure, sure. The nazis also had a lot of policies that they talked very openly about. Doesn't mean they actually enforced them.

the forbids the assassination of foreign leaders. It is a poor political tool to begin with. There's a reason the Castro, Hugo Chavez, etc, haven't been killed like ... wait, I STILL can't think of any leaders the US has assassinated!

It sure isn't for lack of trying. Is it my fault that the US assassins are cowards and unable to carry out their missions because of fear of getting caught etc.?

Furthermore, I am used to the US not being liked. And I'm quite proud of the fact that we just don't care. We continue being a democratic nation and the world's sole superpower.

Well better get used to a higher and more uniform level of hatred of US around the world.

Even our poorest have access to clean water, and most of them even have color televisions.

But not health care, education etc.

I'm not going to feel bad because my country is a successful one. Sure, we have our struggles but hey - we've done well so far...

So far? You don't sound too confident about the future?

How about those involved in bloody, genocidal wars?

The ones like Zaire under Sese Seko? Or South-Africa during the Apartheid era? Or the colonial era entirely? Are you ok with western nations having colonies and controlling them as if they were slaves?

How about slavery, are you ok with that? After all, US was built with slave labour that has never been compensated, nor has the crime of enslaving entire cultures ever been punished.

Assassins typically look to influence current events, not exact some perverse retribution. I highly doubt Bush will be in greater danger upon leaving office.

That's probably why they have all US ex-presidents protected with secret service. You know, I'm just guessing here but there is just so much bad blood against Bush that I think he'll have to stay under the radar kinda like Nixon for as long as he lives.

Those nuts we similarly pissed with a black Secretary of State, a hispanic Attorney General, etc. Their anger is forged from stupidity - I find it hard to believe that people that incredibly dense would be able to assassinate the president.

How much brains does it take? I've seen some pretty stupid people shoot some pretty amazing shots with pretty ordinary rifles. I would say it's not so much a question of brain power as will power plus some ability. Look at Oswald, a pretty average ex-grunt, ok shot by test scores. Didn't take more than that. And yes I'm aware that it may have not just been Oswald, doesn't really change the fact that pretty ordinary people have taken shots against presidents and a surprisingly high percentage of those shots have actually achieved the desired results. Just calculate the attempt/success ratio of officially recognized attempts and be amazed.

Not trying to be class, just to present an honest opinion forged in actual facts.

To me, what is NOT classy is making things up to support bogus claims.

Forged? Like what for example?

[August]

So Onetoughherring, if my country is as bad as you claim how come you haven't joined the jihad against us, or is anonymous internet sniping at your betters all that you're good for?

[Onkel Neal]

So Onetoughherring, if my country is as bad as you claim how come you haven't joined the jihad against us, or is anonymous internet sniping at your betters all that you're good for?

You nailed it. The Internet is the breeding place for the powerless and misinformed to flex their "intellectual muscles". ;)

[OneToughHerring]

So Onetoughherring, if my country is as bad as you claim how come you haven't joined the jihad against us, or is anonymous internet sniping at your betters all that you're good for?

Well dunno, maybe it's because I'm not a religious zealot like Bush. I don't believe in that crusading-stuff, or zombie-Jesuses for that matter.

[OneToughHerring]

So Onetoughherring, if my country is as bad as you claim how come you haven't joined the jihad against us, or is anonymous internet sniping at your betters all that you're good for?
You nailed it. The Internet is the breeding place for the powerless and misinformed to flex their "intellectual muscles". ;)

Misinformed, as in how exactly?

[Aramike]

Well it certainly is very generous in starting the most wars of all nations in the world. It also consumes the most amount of non-renewable resources. And contributes most to the destruction of rainforests which pretty much is a non-renewable as well since those forests once down will stay gone. Yet another bold, broad claim based on ultra-left anecdotal "sources".

What wars are you referring to? Why do you CONSTANTLY avoid the use of specifics?

I'm pretty sure that the VAST majority of the world's wars from the 20th century on has little to do with the US.Weapons of mass destruction, for starters. We've already disproven this time and time again in this very thread.

Next.Are you saying that there will be some kind of a retroactive war crimes tribunal concerning US and it's criminal war in Iraq? Not at all what I am saying. In fact, I was saying, well, what I said.You have plenty of those in US, along with your religious fanatics who have a problem with, among other things, evolution and want to spread christian propaganda everywhere.

Jehova's Witnesses, an aggressive Christian sect from US. The Mormons, pretty much the same. Christian Identity, the base for a lot of US racist ideologies. The evangelists and various other loonies. And don't get me started on Scientology...Ah, more of the "true colors" of a wacko-lefty. Religion is all bad, too, right?

Do you find it IMPOSSIBLE to stick to facts or use examples?

I DO find that certain religious individuals are crackpots, but I don't equate that to mean that all religious individuals are crackpots. I prefer to flex my brain a little and not paint mindlessly with broad strokes.

In fact, when it comes to religious fanatacism, Bush hardly qualifies. There are far more religious fanatics in power. Why aren't you complaining about Iran, for example? And even more fun is how all you lefties with your Free Tibet tshirts and concerts ignore the fact that the traditional Tibetan government is religion-based. You should be all over the Chinese socialist, secular governing of Tibet.Of course we will, nobody asked the US to kill millions of Japanese civilians with indiscriminate bombings against civilian targets. And the same with Germans. And the use of poison gas in WW I wasn't so noble either.

And of course the Vietnam War was an epoch in itself when it comes to US war crimes gone unpunished, and even unchecked. In case you forgot, the Japanese attacked the US. THEY brought US into a war WE did NOT want. WE then decided to END it using a means that preserves the MOST AMERICAN LIFE.

Nothing wrong with that. If it came up again, I'd hope we'd do it again.What list are you looking at? A link, per chance?YOU are the one making the bold, broad claim. Where's YOUR evidence. The burden of proof in a debate isn't on the one saying it ain't so.

:rotfl:

Check this one out: I think a Pink Unicorn is responsible for starting all the wars in human history. What? You don't think so? Show me a link PROVING that a Pink Unicorn didn't start the wars!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :arrgh!: Not many in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. So? Considering I stated "after WWII", this is irrelavant anyway.

But I guess if we can't save them all, we should damn them all, right?

Oh, and yeah, the US has maintained military bases in Japan throughout the 20th century. Those bases were targetted by Russian nukes, along with all of our other military bases. I'm pretty sure the concept of MAD has preserved lives, even in Hiroshima.

Too easy...Actually the Soviets had their own courts where they laid down more severe punishments. Yes, they did indeed have their own courts. However, by your use of the term "actually", you imply that the Soviets didn't participate in the Nuremberg trials.

Wrong again.

Major-General Iona Nikitchenko was the Soviet judge at Nuremberg. The Soviet prosecutor was Lt. General R.A. Rudenko. Each major WWII power had one judge, one alternate judge, and a chief prosecutor.

Do you find even the most BASIC research too difficult? Maybe THAT'S why you want me to post links to disprove your pie-in-the-sky claims... :|\\ They 're-hired' very few ex-nazis, unlike the US and it's Nato-alliance members including West-Germany.That is, shall we say, HOGWASH.

Prove it.

Didn't think you could. Siddown.

The fact is that NOBODY KNOWS how many scientists the USSR employed after the war. In case you weren't aware, the USSR and even post-Soviet-bloc Russia has VERY LITTLE TRANSPARENCY regarding these matters.

You have no idea how many Nazi scientists the USSR employed. Nobody does. Again, making stuff up...The judgements meted out at the Nurnberg trials were quite lenient, and often it was US and the British who were calling for this leniency. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Do your research.

Out of the 24 accused, 12 were sentenced to death, 3 got life imprisonment, 2 got 20 years, 1 got 15, 1 got 10. The rest were either aquitted or committed suicide prior to the trial.

Not very lenient.

As for the US being more lenient, again you prove your lack of knowledge on the subject. The US originally supported a thing called the Morganthau Plan, but widespread protests forced them to abandon it.

Your hero Stalin, on the other hand, simply wanted to execute 50,000+ German staff officers without trial. Sure, that's harsh. Sure, the Nuremberg trials weren't nearly that harsh. But such an out-of-hand execution is morally wrong. Period.You mean Soviets? Oh yes, I feel very bad for their deaths. Do you feel bad for the deaths of the groups I mentioned? Didn't I say that I thought all Nazi crimes were heinous? I swear I said that... :roll: Ok so whoever doesn't sign papers of that type is free to do whatever, have as many nukes, ABC, etc. Every type of weapons program imaginable. As a matter of fact, yes. I know your Grand Utopian Vision doesn't like that, but that's how it is.

See, Nation A builds devastating weapons. Nation B does as well. Nation A is likely deterred from using them because Nation B will use them too.

Now let's say it's all illegal, just like you want. Nation A builds weapons illegally. Nation B doesn't like it, but won't break the law and build its own weapons. Furthermore, Nation B is banned from having any weapons that would be able to STOP Nation A from building weapons.

This can't be any more simple.

Oh, and some further suggested reading: the novel Vortex by Larry Bond illustrates quite clearly an exchange of WMDs and what brought about the escalation to their use. I also personally like Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising as it addresses the likely non-use of WMDs in a full scale US/USSR war. Oh, and the reason they are not used?

Both nations have them. :doh: But only certain weapons for certain countries? And who decides what weapons for what countries? Oh, you want life to be fair! HAHA!

Doesn't work that way.

The nations with the might and economies to do what they wish, will do what they wish. Who decides? The people with the biggest guns. I know YOU don't like that, but *I* do ... my people have the biggest guns. :rock:

That's just the way it works, like it or not.Too many to name. Are you really denying that US engages in assassination programs and has done so since day one? Or even before that, counting the murders of the various chiefs of the various indigineous tribes. Shocking! Your answer is TOO MANY TO NAME, instead of actual names!!! :rotfl: :rotfl:

Let's keep the debate in the 20th/21st century. Name some. Should be easy because there are SO MANY!!! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

And yes, I do deny that the US engages in assassination programs. This is due to the Executive Order (11905) issued by President Ford in 1976. Every US president since has upheld that order, including its reissuance by Reagan (E.O. 12333).

Here, try reading up on it and researching something for a change. I'll even give you the link. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/
It sure isn't for lack of trying. Is it my fault that the US assassins are cowards and unable to carry out their missions because of fear of getting caught etc.? Ah yes, more baseless garbage with no proof behind it whatsoever.

This is how you sound: "The US has assassinated TOO MANY TO COUNT!!! HAH! Gotcha!"

I ask, "WHO?".

You say, "well, the US assassins must be cowards then."

Prove it. Back up the things you say with FACTS. Try it.

I personally believe that YOU are the coward, too afraid of what reality means to your beliefs to actually face it. I'm pretty sure that, the US which you accuse of so barbarically marching across the globe killing people wouldn't be doing so if it were cowardly.

And besides, more to the point of your foolishness... do you REALLY believe that modern state assassins would be staring down the scope of a rifle? HAH!

Governments use missiles for these things, these days. Doesn't take a lot of guts for that.

I'm sure your first reflex will be to respond without any specifics and claim some pie-in-the-sky reason the US government doesn't use missiles, but try not to. You'll only look more foolish.

In fact, from now on, try to actually back up what you say with FACTS. Heh, doubt it...Well better get used to a higher and more uniform level of hatred of US around the world. Maybe, but doubtful. Either way, I just don't care.

But, I'm going to find it hilarious when the US starts hating back and access to our markets and pocketbooks are closed, especially when another emergency hits. People like YOU will be responsible for fallout such as that.

Oh wait - are you saying that American citizens are too good of a people to stop helping out our fellow man in need? Yeah, you're probably right. We won't stop giving just because of idiots with ridiculous hatred founded in anecdotal garbage without ANY FACTS TO BACK IT UP. :|\\ The ones like Zaire under Sese Seko? Or South-Africa during the Apartheid era? Or the colonial era entirely? Are you ok with western nations having colonies and controlling them as if they were slaves?

How about slavery, are you ok with that? After all, US was built with slave labour that has never been compensated, nor has the crime of enslaving entire cultures ever been punished. Now you're digging. We aren't actually committing any crimes (as you claim) so you go and bring up the sins of our fathers.

See, GOOD nations become better. Good nations can make mistakes, and then move away from them.

Is there aparthied in South Africa anymore? Nope. Is there slavery in the US? Nope.

So I guess we're NOT committing these crimes... I guess our nations have evolved. I guess our sense of morality has evolved.

But let's play the history game. Let's get all pissed at the Romans for expanding their empire, and say that all Italians are bad people. Gotta hate the Greeks because of Sparta too, right? And how about those Egyptians enslaving the Jews (oh wait, you probably like that one. Let's skip it.).

We can play this silly game all year. It really isn't related to the topic. Why don't you go on and start another thread. Entitle it, "Sins of the World's Forefathers"?:damn: That's probably why they have all US ex-presidents protected with secret service. You know, I'm just guessing here but there is just so much bad blood against Bush that I think he'll have to stay under the radar kinda like Nixon for as long as he lives. Britney Spears has bodyguards. Doesn't mean anything.

Anyone high profile may see a need for protection. Silly argument.How much brains does it take? I've seen some pretty stupid people shoot some pretty amazing shots with pretty ordinary rifles. I would say it's not so much a question of brain power as will power plus some ability. Look at Oswald, a pretty average ex-grunt, ok shot by test scores. Didn't take more than that. And yes I'm aware that it may have not just been Oswald, doesn't really change the fact that pretty ordinary people have taken shots against presidents and a surprisingly high percentage of those shots have actually achieved the desired results. Just calculate the attempt/success ratio of officially recognized attempts and be amazed. Yeah, well, our Secret Service has a pretty good record of covering all areas that a gunmen would be able to shoot from. That's why it hasn't happened.

Furthermore, since you bring up JFK, maybe you've noticed something: US Presidents in a motorcade don't ride in convertables with their roofs open anymore. In fact, they ride in armored limos and such ... with 2 or 3 identical dummy vehicles. I'm sure that Oswald wouldn't have been able to do what he did today. You would have known that if you did any research, by the way.Forged? Like what for example?Let's see, MY use of facts ... hmmm ... oh, here:

In this post ALONE I brought up the names of people involved in Nuremberg on the Soviet side along with some of the trials statistics. I rebutted your garbage US assassin argument with the Executive Orders banning them (including their numbers and a link). I've illustrated the concept of MAD...

...you know what? Just read the post. It's FULL of fun facts. :know:

Where's yours?

[MothBalls]

Well it certainly is very generous in starting the most wars of all nations in the world. It also consumes the most amount of non-renewable resources. And contributes most to the destruction of rainforests which pretty much is a non-renewable as well since those forests once down will stay gone. Yet another bold, broad claim based on ultra-left anecdotal "sources".

What wars are you referring to? Why do you CONSTANTLY avoid the use of specifics?

I'm pretty sure that the VAST majority of the world's wars from the 20th century on has little to do with the US.Weapons of mass destruction, for starters. We've already disproven this time and time again in this very thread.

Next.Are you saying that there will be some kind of a retroactive war crimes tribunal concerning US and it's criminal war in Iraq? Not at all what I am saying. In fact, I was saying, well, what I said.You have plenty of those in US, along with your religious fanatics who have a problem with, among other things, evolution and want to spread christian propaganda everywhere.

Jehova's Witnesses, an aggressive Christian sect from US. The Mormons, pretty much the same. Christian Identity, the base for a lot of US racist ideologies. The evangelists and various other loonies. And don't get me started on Scientology...Ah, more of the "true colors" of a wacko-lefty. Religion is all bad, too, right?

Do you find it IMPOSSIBLE to stick to facts or use examples?

I DO find that certain religious individuals are crackpots, but I don't equate that to mean that all religious individuals are crackpots. I prefer to flex my brain a little and not paint mindlessly with broad strokes.

In fact, when it comes to religious fanatacism, Bush hardly qualifies. There are far more religious fanatics in power. Why aren't you complaining about Iran, for example? And even more fun is how all you lefties with your Free Tibet tshirts and concerts ignore the fact that the traditional Tibetan government is religion-based. You should be all over the Chinese socialist, secular governing of Tibet.Of course we will, nobody asked the US to kill millions of Japanese civilians with indiscriminate bombings against civilian targets. And the same with Germans. And the use of poison gas in WW I wasn't so noble either.

And of course the Vietnam War was an epoch in itself when it comes to US war crimes gone unpunished, and even unchecked. In case you forgot, the Japanese attacked the US. THEY brought US into a war WE did NOT want. WE then decided to END it using a means that preserves the MOST AMERICAN LIFE.

Nothing wrong with that. If it came up again, I'd hope we'd do it again.What list are you looking at? A link, per chance?YOU are the one making the bold, broad claim. Where's YOUR evidence. The burden of proof in a debate isn't on the one saying it ain't so.

:rotfl:

Check this one out: I think a Pink Unicorn is responsible for starting all the wars in human history. What? You don't think so? Show me a link PROVING that a Pink Unicorn didn't start the wars!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :arrgh!: Not many in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. So? Considering I stated "after WWII", this is irrelavant anyway.

But I guess if we can't save them all, we should damn them all, right?

Oh, and yeah, the US has maintained military bases in Japan throughout the 20th century. Those bases were targetted by Russian nukes, along with all of our other military bases. I'm pretty sure the concept of MAD has preserved lives, even in Hiroshima.

Too easy...Actually the Soviets had their own courts where they laid down more severe punishments. Yes, they did indeed have their own courts. However, by your use of the term "actually", you imply that the Soviets didn't participate in the Nuremberg trials.

Wrong again.

Major-General Iona Nikitchenko was the Soviet judge at Nuremberg. The Soviet prosecutor was Lt. General R.A. Rudenko. Each major WWII power had one judge, one alternate judge, and a chief prosecutor.

Do you find even the most BASIC research too difficult? Maybe THAT'S why you want me to post links to disprove your pie-in-the-sky claims... :|\\ They 're-hired' very few ex-nazis, unlike the US and it's Nato-alliance members including West-Germany.That is, shall we say, HOGWASH.

Prove it.

Didn't think you could. Siddown.

The fact is that NOBODY KNOWS how many scientists the USSR employed after the war. In case you weren't aware, the USSR and even post-Soviet-bloc Russia has VERY LITTLE TRANSPARENCY regarding these matters.

You have no idea how many Nazi scientists the USSR employed. Nobody does. Again, making stuff up...The judgements meted out at the Nurnberg trials were quite lenient, and often it was US and the British who were calling for this leniency. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Do your research.

Out of the 24 accused, 12 were sentenced to death, 3 got life imprisonment, 2 got 20 years, 1 got 15, 1 got 10. The rest were either aquitted or committed suicide prior to the trial.

Not very lenient.

As for the US being more lenient, again you prove your lack of knowledge on the subject. The US originally supported a thing called the Morganthau Plan, but widespread protests forced them to abandon it.

Your hero Stalin, on the other hand, simply wanted to execute 50,000+ German staff officers without trial. Sure, that's harsh. Sure, the Nuremberg trials weren't nearly that harsh. But such an out-of-hand execution is morally wrong. Period.You mean Soviets? Oh yes, I feel very bad for their deaths. Do you feel bad for the deaths of the groups I mentioned? Didn't I say that I thought all Nazi crimes were heinous? I swear I said that... :roll: Ok so whoever doesn't sign papers of that type is free to do whatever, have as many nukes, ABC, etc. Every type of weapons program imaginable. As a matter of fact, yes. I know your Grand Utopian Vision doesn't like that, but that's how it is.

See, Nation A builds devastating weapons. Nation B does as well. Nation A is likely deterred from using them because Nation B will use them too.

Now let's say it's all illegal, just like you want. Nation A builds weapons illegally. Nation B doesn't like it, but won't break the law and build its own weapons. Furthermore, Nation B is banned from having any weapons that would be able to STOP Nation A from building weapons.

This can't be any more simple.

Oh, and some further suggested reading: the novel Vortex by Larry Bond illustrates quite clearly an exchange of WMDs and what brought about the escalation to their use. I also personally like Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising as it addresses the likely non-use of WMDs in a full scale US/USSR war. Oh, and the reason they are not used?

Both nations have them. :doh: But only certain weapons for certain countries? And who decides what weapons for what countries? Oh, you want life to be fair! HAHA!

Doesn't work that way.

The nations with the might and economies to do what they wish, will do what they wish. Who decides? The people with the biggest guns. I know YOU don't like that, but *I* do ... my people have the biggest guns. :rock:

That's just the way it works, like it or not.Too many to name. Are you really denying that US engages in assassination programs and has done so since day one? Or even before that, counting the murders of the various chiefs of the various indigineous tribes. Shocking! Your answer is TOO MANY TO NAME, instead of actual names!!! :rotfl: :rotfl:

Let's keep the debate in the 20th/21st century. Name some. Should be easy because there are SO MANY!!! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

And yes, I do deny that the US engages in assassination programs. This is due to the Executive Order (11905) issued by President Ford in 1976. Every US president since has upheld that order, including its reissuance by Reagan (E.O. 12333).

Here, try reading up on it and researching something for a change. I'll even give you the link. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/
It sure isn't for lack of trying. Is it my fault that the US assassins are cowards and unable to carry out their missions because of fear of getting caught etc.? Ah yes, more baseless garbage with no proof behind it whatsoever.

This is how you sound: "The US has assassinated TOO MANY TO COUNT!!! HAH! Gotcha!"

I ask, "WHO?".

You say, "well, the US assassins must be cowards then."

Prove it. Back up the things you say with FACTS. Try it.

I personally believe that YOU are the coward, too afraid of what reality means to your beliefs to actually face it. I'm pretty sure that, the US which you accuse of so barbarically marching across the globe killing people wouldn't be doing so if it were cowardly.

And besides, more to the point of your foolishness... do you REALLY believe that modern state assassins would be staring down the scope of a rifle? HAH!

Governments use missiles for these things, these days. Doesn't take a lot of guts for that.

I'm sure your first reflex will be to respond without any specifics and claim some pie-in-the-sky reason the US government doesn't use missiles, but try not to. You'll only look more foolish.

In fact, from now on, try to actually back up what you say with FACTS. Heh, doubt it...Well better get used to a higher and more uniform level of hatred of US around the world. Maybe, but doubtful. Either way, I just don't care.

But, I'm going to find it hilarious when the US starts hating back and access to our markets and pocketbooks are closed, especially when another emergency hits. People like YOU will be responsible for fallout such as that.

Oh wait - are you saying that American citizens are too good of a people to stop helping out our fellow man in need? Yeah, you're probably right. We won't stop giving just because of idiots with ridiculous hatred founded in anecdotal garbage without ANY FACTS TO BACK IT UP. :|\\ The ones like Zaire under Sese Seko? Or South-Africa during the Apartheid era? Or the colonial era entirely? Are you ok with western nations having colonies and controlling them as if they were slaves?

How about slavery, are you ok with that? After all, US was built with slave labour that has never been compensated, nor has the crime of enslaving entire cultures ever been punished. Now you're digging. We aren't actually committing any crimes (as you claim) so you go and bring up the sins of our fathers.

See, GOOD nations become better. Good nations can make mistakes, and then move away from them.

Is there aparthied in South Africa anymore? Nope. Is there slavery in the US? Nope.

So I guess we're NOT committing these crimes... I guess our nations have evolved. I guess our sense of morality has evolved.

But let's play the history game. Let's get all pissed at the Romans for expanding their empire, and say that all Italians are bad people. Gotta hate the Greeks because of Sparta too, right? And how about those Egyptians enslaving the Jews (oh wait, you probably like that one. Let's skip it.).

We can play this silly game all year. It really isn't related to the topic. Why don't you go on and start another thread. Entitle it, "Sins of the World's Forefathers"?:damn: That's probably why they have all US ex-presidents protected with secret service. You know, I'm just guessing here but there is just so much bad blood against Bush that I think he'll have to stay under the radar kinda like Nixon for as long as he lives. Britney Spears has bodyguards. Doesn't mean anything.

Anyone high profile may see a need for protection. Silly argument.How much brains does it take? I've seen some pretty stupid people shoot some pretty amazing shots with pretty ordinary rifles. I would say it's not so much a question of brain power as will power plus some ability. Look at Oswald, a pretty average ex-grunt, ok shot by test scores. Didn't take more than that. And yes I'm aware that it may have not just been Oswald, doesn't really change the fact that pretty ordinary people have taken shots against presidents and a surprisingly high percentage of those shots have actually achieved the desired results. Just calculate the attempt/success ratio of officially recognized attempts and be amazed. Yeah, well, our Secret Service has a pretty good record of covering all areas that a gunmen would be able to shoot from. That's why it hasn't happened.

Furthermore, since you bring up JFK, maybe you've noticed something: US Presidents in a motorcade don't ride in convertables with their roofs open anymore. In fact, they ride in armored limos and such ... with 2 or 3 identical dummy vehicles. I'm sure that Oswald wouldn't have been able to do what he did today. You would have known that if you did any research, by the way.Forged? Like what for example?Let's see, MY use of facts ... hmmm ... oh, here:

In this post ALONE I brought up the names of people involved in Nuremberg on the Soviet side along with some of the trials statistics. I rebutted your garbage US assassin argument with the Executive Orders banning them (including their numbers and a link). I've illustrated the concept of MAD...

...you know what? Just read the post. It's FULL of fun facts. :know:

Where's yours?

All this crap cause a dude threw a shoe........ geeeeeze.....

[Aramike]

So Onetoughherring, if my country is as bad as you claim how come you haven't joined the jihad against us, or is anonymous internet sniping at your betters all that you're good for?
You nailed it. The Internet is the breeding place for the powerless and misinformed to flex their "intellectual muscles". ;)

Misinformed, as in how exactly?I agree with this, actually.

I think "uninformed" is more appropriate.

[AVGWarhawk]

Gosh, I wonder what would have happened here if a boot was thrown instead of a shoe?:roll:

[AVGWarhawk]

I bet 0.02 cents that nobody reads those posts. Can't you just get to the point and tell us who's got the biggest dick and call it a day ?

Btw, I managed to hit Dubbya 16 times in a row :cool:

I only got to hit him once. :-?

[HunterICX]

Gosh, I wonder what would have happened here if a boot was thrown instead of a shoe?:roll:

Das Boot?

HunterICX

[Jimbuna]

Gosh, I wonder what would have happened here if a boot was thrown instead of a shoe?:roll:

I'd have been asking for a pair of size 10 boots instead of shoes :lol:

[baggygreen]

I read it.

and i laughed.

and then i threw shoes at bushy.

and i laughed some more.

I only hit him once though..:cry:

[Dan D]

Bush dodged the shoe, but groovy special agent Austin Powers did not:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=5D5oKEVqQJg

[heartc]

So Onetoughherring, if my country is as bad as you claim how come you haven't joined the jihad against us, or is anonymous internet sniping at your betters all that you're good for?
You nailed it. The Internet is the breeding place for the powerless and misinformed to flex their "intellectual muscles". ;)

Problem is, that those people don't just post in the internet, but also cast their vote. And believe you me when I tell you that this "onethougherring" guy is not in the minority with his views here in Europe, at least Old Europe.

Somewhere I read that Goebbels said in the Führerbunker, short before it was all over: "They will hate us for 50 years from now. But 100 years from now, they will love us again." Goebbels was a sociopathic devil, but he wasn't dumb. And the jury on this remark of his is still out. And very much so when you read through this thread.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://i38.tinypic.com/juz953.jpeg

[Aramike]

So Onetoughherring, if my country is as bad as you claim how come you haven't joined the jihad against us, or is anonymous internet sniping at your betters all that you're good for?
You nailed it. The Internet is the breeding place for the powerless and misinformed to flex their "intellectual muscles". ;)

Problem is, that those people don't just post in the internet, but also cast their vote. And believe you me when I tell you that this "onethougherring" guy is not in the minority with his views here in Europe, at least Old Europe.

Somewhere I read that Goebbels said in the Führerbunker, short before it was all over: "They will hate us for 50 years from now. But 100 years from now, they will love us again." Goebbels was a sociopathic devil, but he wasn't dumb. And the jury on this remark of his is still out. And very much so when you read through this thread.Very true.

In the end, I fully understand why there are so many people out there who hate the war, Bush, and America in general. It's just so damned easy.

It's easy to hate the big guy on the block when you KNOW that said big guy has and would fight for your right to hate him. It's a lot harder to criticize, say, Muslim extremists in an editorial page when you know that they would try to kill you over it.

[subchaser12]

In the end, I fully understand why there are so many people out there who hate the war, Bush, and America in general. It's just so damned easy.



You right wingers need to stop hiding behind the flag. People hate America's right wing religious nujobs who used to win elections and run the country and other countries into the ground. People now don't hate America since America came to its senses and slaughtered the republicans at the polls in the house, senate and last but not least the oval office. Liberals and left wing people do not hate America at all. I'm so sick of your right wingers speaking for the country, well not anymore. You all are the past. Go back to patting yourself on the back and taking credit for the air the entire planet breaths because we are tired of hearing about it.

People love America now. The Obama win is what America is supposed to be. WE are the only country where a biracial kid from a deadbeat African dad and a poor nobody mom can be president. That's America, not this endless precession of rich white christian males. I'm a left wing liberal! Guess what, I've been in the army. I don't know any terrorists except the Bush Administration. I got news for you, we don't hate America at all. We hate the christian right that only cares about making their wallets fat over everything else. We are sick of it.

You right wingers better change your tune. Claiming yourselves to be the only real patriotic Americans got you slaughtered at the polls last month. Calling everyone who disagrees with you from Obama, Biden or Europe a "terrorist" got you slaughtered at the polls.

The Orwellian patriot act is NOT American. Lieing to start the two wars is Vietraq and Asscrackistan was not American. Telling the whole world "you are with us or against us" is not American. Telling the insurgency to "bring it on" was not American. Outing CIA agents for political reasons "Valerie Plame" was not only un-American is was TREASON. Treating everyone at the airport who isn't white or who has an accent like they are a "terrorist" is NOT American. Putting goatherders or anyone in Guantanamo Bay with NO CHARGES indefinately is NOT American. This place has been as un-American as it has ever been over the past 8 years. It's been downright scary.

So to all you right wingers I say this. Yes you are American loving patriotic people, but stop acting like you are the only "true Americans" in the country and the rest of us just "live here".

:D

[Aramike]

Of course, if people criticize Bush and his Iraq adventure it's not because he deserves it, it's only because it's easy :rotfl:

And that line that comes quite often on that forum, "leave *** alone, go criticize the muslims". As if different criticisms were mutually exclusive :lol:You left-wingers should take a reading class.

I didn't say criticize. I said HATE. Two different, distinct words with distinct meanings. Need a link to Webster's Dictionary?

I've criticized the war. Still dont hate...

[Aramike]

In the end, I fully understand why there are so many people out there who hate the war, Bush, and America in general. It's just so damned easy.



You right wingers need to stop hiding behind the flag. People hate America's right wing religious nujobs who used to win elections and run the country and other countries into the ground. People now don't hate America since America came to its senses and slaughtered the republicans at the polls in the house, senate and last but not least the oval office. Liberals and left wing people do not hate America at all. I'm so sick of your right wingers speaking for the country, well not anymore. You all are the past. Go back to patting yourself on the back and taking credit for the air the entire planet breaths because we are tired of hearing about it.

People love America now. The Obama win is what America is supposed to be. WE are the only country where a biracial kid from a deadbeat African dad and a poor nobody mom can be president. That's America, not this endless precession of rich white christian males. I'm a left wing liberal! Guess what, I've been in the army. I don't know any terrorists except the Bush Administration. I got news for you, we don't hate America at all. We hate the christian right that only cares about making their wallets fat over everything else. We are sick of it.

You right wingers better change your tune. Claiming yourselves to be the only real patriotic Americans got you slaughtered at the polls last month. Calling everyone who disagrees with you from Obama, Biden or Europe a "terrorist" got you slaughtered at the polls.

The Orwellian patriot act is NOT American. Lieing to start the two wars is Vietraq and Asscrackistan was not American. Telling the whole world "you are with us or against us" is not American. Telling the insurgency to "bring it on" was not American. Outing CIA agents for political reasons "Valerie Plame" was not only un-American is was TREASON. Treating everyone at the airport who isn't white or who has an accent like they are a "terrorist" is NOT American. Putting goatherders or anyone in Guantanamo Bay with NO CHARGES indefinately is NOT American. This place has been as un-American as it has ever been over the past 8 years. It's been downright scary.

So to all you right wingers I say this. Yes you are American loving patriotic people, but stop acting like you are the only "true Americans" in the country and the rest of us just "live here".

:DI was going to debate this with you, but frankly, your post isn't very smart. You may want to leave whatever funny-funny you're smoking at the door. Have you READ this thread?

Obama hasn't changed any perceptions.

[Aramike]

Of course, if people criticize Bush and his Iraq adventure it's not because he deserves it, it's only because it's easy :rotfl:

And that line that comes quite often on that forum, "leave *** alone, go criticize the muslims". As if different criticisms were mutually exclusive :lol:You left-wingers should take a reading class.

I didn't say criticize. I said HATE. Two different, distinct words with distinct meanings. Need a link to Webster's Dictionary?

I've criticized the war. Still dont hate...
Ah, yes, sorry. I don't hate either, I just don't understand how it can be objectively supported.
Anyway, you seem a bit tense, I hear throwing shoes helps relaxing
http://play.sockandawe.com/

Edit, as for the Obama thing, well I'm sure it's great for the US but for the rest of the world I doubt it will make much change, except he will probably be less funny to mock.Not tense. Just have a stinging way of writing. It's fun. Better than rock-throwing. :lol:

In any case, I see how it can be objectively supported. I also see how it can be objectively criticized. That isn't really what I've been debating here.

[subchaser12]

I was going to debate this with you, but frankly, your post isn't very smart. You may want to leave whatever funny-funny you're smoking at the door. Have you READ this thread?

Obama hasn't changed any perceptions.

Call me and other liberals all the names you want. My man Obama is getting sworn in next month, yours isn't.

[Aramike]

Not tense. Just have a stinging way of writing. It's fun. Better than rock-throwing. :lol:

In any case, I see how it can be objectively supported. I also see how it can be objectively criticized. That isn't really what I've been debating here.

You call internet dick contests and posts full of quotes debating ? No wonder I missed it :lol:Debate: presenting one argument against another. The size of the post has nothing to do with it. And using quotes is my way of showing that I'm not taking another person's comments out of context.Call me and other liberals all the names you want. My man Obama is getting sworn in next month, yours isn't.I don't recall revealing my political views and associations. Please refrain from making assumptions. You have no idea who I voted for.

Yet another thing you've said that's not terribly smart.

Oh, and "your man" Obama has kept the Republican Secretary of Defense. HA! Evidently even HE doesn't agree with your absurd accusations.

[subchaser12]

I don't recall revealing my political views and associations. Please refrain from making assumptions. You have no idea who I voted for.

Yet another thing you've said that's not terribly smart.





Oh whatever, this has been the tactic of right wingers since around 2003 who don't have the guts to admit they are a Bush supporter and voter. No one wants to claim they voted or supported the guy yet he won 2 elections. You all deliver and defend Bush and Companys talking points and views to the letter and then when you are called the obvious you say "I didn't say I was a Bush supporting republican", oh no, I was just umm, well you know supporting all of his views and points like I am reading off a Karl Rove memo.

Sorry man, but look at your posts in this post. People don't deliver pro Bush propaganda like you do better than the white house press secretary and not be a right wing Bush supporter.

By all means play dumb if it comforts you, but you aren't fooling anyone.

[subchaser12]

Oh, and "your man" Obama has kept the Republican Secretary of Defense. HA! Evidently even HE doesn't agree with your absurd accusations.

Since when did I say Obama was not a moderate bipartisan president? You are the one calling people left wing wackos in here, you can slander us all you want but it doesn't make it true. Here is another republican cabinet pick.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/transition.wrap/index.html

You are jumping up and down going "ah ha!" becuse you are believing your own propaganda. Calling us all left wing wackos doesn't make it so.

[MothBalls]

Calling us all left wing wackos doesn't make it so.I never thought you were left wing.

[subchaser12]

I never thought you were left wing.

Well I didn't think was either, but since I'm not with Bush I'm with the terrorists. :know:

[baggygreen]

Subchaser - I'm sorry, but if you think the world's opinion, and more importantly your enemies' opinions have changed because Obama will be the next president, you're wrong, and you are showing you dont understand the people that we (the west) are fighting.

they hate you, me, us - because of who we are, not because of who our leaders are nor what decisions they make. To them, our existence represents everything they oppose. It offends everything they believe. You could kill a thousand of your own countrymen in a great big battle against them, but they'd still lop your head off when you're done.

And as for me, well you yanks still speak with funny accents and terrible pronounciation and spelling, so I'm gonna keep poking fun, regardless of who is in charge :lol:

[Aramike]

I don't recall revealing my political views and associations. Please refrain from making assumptions. You have no idea who I voted for.

Yet another thing you've said that's not terribly smart.





Oh whatever, this has been the tactic of right wingers since around 2003 who don't have the guts to admit they are a Bush supporter and voter. No one wants to claim they voted or supported the guy yet he won 2 elections. You all deliver and defend Bush and Companys talking points and views to the letter and then when you are called the obvious you say "I didn't say I was a Bush supporting republican", oh no, I was just umm, well you know supporting all of his views and points like I am reading off a Karl Rove memo.

Sorry man, but look at your posts in this post. People don't deliver pro Bush propaganda like you do better than the white house press secretary and not be a right wing Bush supporter.

By all means play dumb if it comforts you, but you aren't fooling anyone.Wow, are AREN'T very smart at this, are you? I'm not playing dumb ... I've been VERY CLEAR as to where I come from and why.

YOU, on the other hand, are the one who can't articulate your points with facts. Rather, you hide behind this mantra of being an Obama supporter.

I don't NEED to say who I support in order to validate my view. My views can stand quite well on their own, thank you. You should try it...Well I didn't think was either, but since I'm not with Bush I'm with the terrorists.You didn't think you were a left winger? REALLY???

Do you KNOW what the term "left wing" means?

Here, I'll help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

[Kapitan_Phillips]

http://stuweb.ee.mtu.edu/%7Ejamchris/Funny_and_misc/owned.jpg


:lol::doh:

Let this thread die, folks. Nothing but nastiness is coming from it. :know:

[caspofungin]

they hate you, me, us - because of who we are, not because of who our leaders are nor what decisions they make. To them, our existence represents everything they oppose. It offends everything they believe.
most of the anti-american types i've met in various countries in the middle east and east africa (as well as in europe) tend to hate american foreign policy rather than americans as individuals.

when bush came out with the whole, "they hate us for our freedom," line, people were laughing out loud.

of course, there's a certain population (on both sides) who believe in the "clash of civilizations," the ultimate aim of islam/the west is to destroy the west/islam, etc.

but just stating "they hate us" is ignoring the motivations of a significant portion of people that have or will attack western interests.

[baggygreen]

but KP, thats such an awesome picture!

If only he had a shoe in his hand...:hmm:

[Mittelwaechter]

http://img3.imagebanana.com/img/71g0war6/BeNiceOr.jpg

[subchaser12]

Wow, are AREN'T very smart at this, are you?

All your randomly CAPITALIZED words are BELONG to us....

[VipertheSniper]

but KP, thats such an awesome picture!

If only he had a shoe in his hand...:hmm:


Well... can you actually see his hand? I don't

[baggygreen]

they hate you, me, us - because of who we are, not because of who our leaders are nor what decisions they make. To them, our existence represents everything they oppose. It offends everything they believe.
most of the anti-american types i've met in various countries in the middle east and east africa (as well as in europe) tend to hate american foreign policy rather than americans as individuals.

when bush came out with the whole, "they hate us for our freedom," line, people were laughing out loud.

of course, there's a certain population (on both sides) who believe in the "clash of civilizations," the ultimate aim of islam/the west is to destroy the west/islam, etc.

but just stating "they hate us" is ignoring the motivations of a significant portion of people that have or will attack western interests.I referred to the militant islamists, and thoguht that was clear, but maybe it wasnt - thats ok. as an aside, I've been threatened with my life in europe after having been mistaken for a yank.. that was a bit harsh to go off at someone for foreign policy! course I told the gentlemen i was an aussie and they were very apologetic :lol:

What yyou say about hatred of foreign policy from those locations is most probably true. But, in my opinion, that is an example of the point i made earlier in the thread. there hasn't really been a drastic shift in foreign policy since ww2 - when the policy worked perfectly well for those concerned! some things here or there have changed with the times, yes, and from one administration to the other, but it hasnt for example become isolationist again.

[baggygreen]

but KP, thats such an awesome picture!

If only he had a shoe in his hand...:hmm:


Well... can you actually see his hand? I don'tWell, the imprint of the sole on her cheek could work :lol:

[Iceman]

Wow this one actually went pretty good with some good discussion / debate...

Kiwi - those were great you made my point lol...

and this one made me chuckle - "The Flat Earth people are looking for recruits, you know"...lmao.

Dan D - Great one forgot about poor austin lol

ok wheres that Bush vid...

Here we go about 2 minutes in...:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8px_KyIFyo

Letterman should have run for pres... pass the popcorn. http://k43.pbase.com/o5/42/267742/1/68416045.wGDPMlLK.popcorn.gif

[subchaser12]

The girl in the crowd at :24 is funny playing with her purse bored as hell. I can't listen to Tony Snow's boring montone, it's like he is already dead in this video. Zzzz...

[OneToughHerring]

Yet another bold, broad claim based on ultra-left anecdotal "sources".

What wars are you referring to? Why do you CONSTANTLY avoid the use of specifics?
Wars as in a sustained piece of conflict that the US took part in with military force.

We've already disproven this time and time again in this very thread.
Nope.

Ok let me ask you again, are you saying that there will be some kind of a retroactive war crimes tribunal concerning US and it's criminal war in Iraq? Because if not then I'm right concerning the fact that US exempts itself from the agreements it thinks others should follow.

Ah, more of the "true colors" of a wacko-lefty. Religion is all bad, too, right?

Do you find it IMPOSSIBLE to stick to facts or use examples?

I DO find that certain religious individuals are crackpots, but I don't equate that to mean that all religious individuals are crackpots. I prefer to flex my brain a little and not paint mindlessly with broad strokes.

In fact, when it comes to religious fanatacism, Bush hardly qualifies. There are far more religious fanatics in power. Why aren't you complaining about Iran, for example? And even more fun is how all you lefties with your Free Tibet tshirts and concerts ignore the fact that the traditional Tibetan government is religion-based. You should be all over the Chinese socialist, secular governing of Tibet.
No because US has a far more central position in the world then the nations you mentioned. If only the US would focus on it's own borders and not go starting genocidal wars around the planet. Although most of USA's wars end up with it being the loser, even against third world nations.

In case you forgot, the Japanese attacked the US. THEY brought US into a war WE did NOT want. WE then decided to END it using a means that preserves the MOST AMERICAN LIFE.

Nothing wrong with that. If it came up again, I'd hope we'd do it again.
Oh I see, so the lives of US soldiers are more valuable then those of Japanese civilians.


'YOU are the one making the bold, broad claim. Where's YOUR evidence. The burden of proof in a debate isn't on the one saying it ain't so.
Meaning you can't prove what you write?

So? Considering I stated "after WWII", this is irrelavant anyway.

But I guess if we can't save them all, we should damn them all, right?

Oh, and yeah, the US has maintained military bases in Japan throughout the 20th century. Those bases were targetted by Russian nukes, along with all of our other military bases. I'm pretty sure the concept of MAD has preserved lives, even in Hiroshima.
So you're saying that the nuclear threat is gone from the world now? Oh wait...

Too easy...
What?

Yes, they did indeed have their own courts. However, by your use of the term "actually", you imply that the Soviets didn't participate in the Nuremberg trials.
Well they sat in the crowd like a lot of people but were in the minority when it comes to actually deciding on the sentences etc.


Wrong again.
Err, no.


Major-General Iona Nikitchenko was the Soviet judge at Nuremberg. The Soviet prosecutor was Lt. General R.A. Rudenko. Each major WWII power had one judge, one alternate judge, and a chief prosecutor.

Do you find even the most BASIC research too difficult? Maybe THAT'S why you want me to post links to disprove your pie-in-the-sky claims... :|\\
So you are saying the Soviets had majority in deciding the judgments? Learn to read first or is your US school system so bad that it doesn't teach people to read.


That is, shall we say, HOGWASH.

Prove it.
Nope. I'm very glad that I know this and have no inclination of proving it to you, I'd prefer you live in ignorance. The info is out there, go find it.

The fact is that NOBODY KNOWS how many scientists the USSR employed after the war. In case you weren't aware, the USSR and even post-Soviet-bloc Russia has VERY LITTLE TRANSPARENCY regarding these matters.

You have no idea how many Nazi scientists the USSR employed. Nobody does. Again, making stuff up...
Actually the information is out there. I'm sure you can name one ex-nazi scientist hired by the Soviets after the war? They mostly used spying for intel gathering, and were very good at it.

Out of the 24 accused, 12 were sentenced to death, 3 got life imprisonment, 2 got 20 years, 1 got 15, 1 got 10. The rest were either aquitted or committed suicide prior to the trial.
So 50 + million died and 12 sentenced to death? Btw, that kinda puts the whole 9/11 - thing in perspective. If the judgements were so fair then why are organisations like Simon Wiesenthal still actively looking for ex-nazis of all ranks?

Not very lenient.

As for the US being more lenient, again you prove your lack of knowledge on the subject. The US originally supported a thing called the Morganthau Plan, but widespread protests forced them to abandon it.

Your hero Stalin, on the other hand, simply wanted to execute 50,000+ German staff officers without trial. Sure, that's harsh. Sure, the Nuremberg trials weren't nearly that harsh. But such an out-of-hand execution is morally wrong. Period.
It's ok to suggest things, I'm just looking at what happened in the end.

Didn't I say that I thought all Nazi crimes were heinous? I swear I said that... :roll:
You mentioned the deaths of the Jews as THE crime the nazis committed. The others I guess didn't matter to you.

As a matter of fact, yes. I know your Grand Utopian Vision doesn't like that, but that's how it is.

See, Nation A builds devastating weapons. Nation B does as well. Nation A is likely deterred from using them because Nation B will use them too.

Now let's say it's all illegal, just like you want. Nation A builds weapons illegally. Nation B doesn't like it, but won't break the law and build its own weapons. Furthermore, Nation B is banned from having any weapons that would be able to STOP Nation A from building weapons.

This can't be any more simple.

Oh, and some further suggested reading: the novel Vortex by Larry Bond illustrates quite clearly an exchange of WMDs and what brought about the escalation to their use. I also personally like Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising as it addresses the likely non-use of WMDs in a full scale US/USSR war. Oh, and the reason they are not used?

Both nations have them. :doh:
Well my country is still banned from making certain types of weapons, like having nukes because of the Paris peace deals of 1947. We could decide to have them I guess but won't.

Oh, you want life to be fair! HAHA!

Doesn't work that way.

The nations with the might and economies to do what they wish, will do what they wish. Who decides? The people with the biggest guns. I know YOU don't like that, but *I* do ... my people have the biggest guns. :rock:

That's just the way it works, like it or not.
Well I'd like there to be some agreements that would govern all nations and not just some and that the most important agreements would be agreed by at least the biggest nations.

Let's keep the debate in the 20th/21st century.

You keep the debate where ever you want to keep it, doesn't change my opinion one way or the other. But by all means, give links, might be something of interest in them.

Ah yes, more baseless garbage with no proof behind it whatsoever.

This is how you sound: "The US has assassinated TOO MANY TO COUNT!!! HAH! Gotcha!"

I ask, "WHO?".

You say, "well, the US assassins must be cowards then."

Prove it. Back up the things you say with FACTS. Try it.


I have to go to work in about 15 min but I'll get back to you later on this one although looking for info and not getting paid is sort of like free work and as a greedy capitalist I usually don't engage in that kind of stuff. I like to use my money to consume and not give a **** about other people. I learned this philosophy from the Americans.

I personally believe that YOU are the coward, too afraid of what reality means to ...
Yea yea, blaa blaa.

Maybe, but doubtful. Either way, I just don't care.
The people who hate the US care even less. That's the whole point.

...FACTS...
You are free to present them so I'll know what qualifies as facts to you. It has to be from the CNN - web site? :D

Now you're digging. We aren't actually committing any crimes (as you claim) so you go and bring up the sins of our fathers.
No, the people and corporations in power RIGHT NOW in the US.

See, GOOD nations become better. Good nations can make mistakes, and then move away from them.

Is there aparthied in South Africa anymore? Nope. Is there slavery in the US? Nope.

So I guess we're NOT committing these crimes... I guess our nations have evolved. I guess our sense of morality has evolved.

Ok so if I were to kill someone but wouldn't kill anyone after that the whole thing would be ok, right?

And as for example slavery, it's just transformed into something else. Today US slavery is in the third world, in the swetshops etc. where child labour is used, and even child prostitution is common. But I guess thats a key part and parcel of the US mentality.

But let's play the history game. Let's get all pissed at the Romans for expanding their empire, and say that all Italians are bad people. Gotta hate the Greeks because of Sparta too, right? And how about those Egyptians enslaving the Jews (oh wait, you probably like that one. Let's skip it.).
Oh so you want to forget the crimes of your nations? Can't blame you, I want to forget the crimes of my country. Although my country was severely punished after WW2 and is still under some form of restrictions as a result of it, the US never had any type of punishment for the multitude of war crimes it has committed.

We can play this silly game all year. It really isn't related to the topic. Why don't you go on and start another thread. Entitle it, "Sins of the World's Forefathers"?:damn:
So war crimes don't count, unless they are committed by someone else then the US. I get it now.

Britney Spears has bodyguards. Doesn't mean anything.

Anyone high profile may see a need for protection. Silly argument.
She doesn't have the secret service (SS). :D The US government pays for the protection of ex-presidents. This is something Ms. Spears doesn't have.

Yeah, well, our Secret Service has a pretty good record of covering all areas that a gunmen would be able to shoot from. That's why it hasn't happened.

Furthermore, since you bring up JFK, maybe you've noticed something: US Presidents in a motorcade don't ride in convertables with their roofs open anymore. In fact, they ride in armored limos and such ... with 2 or 3 identical dummy vehicles. I'm sure that Oswald wouldn't have been able to do what he did today. You would have known that if you did any research, by the way.
Pretty soon the US president won't be able to have press conferences like the one in Iraq. It will just be too dangerous and the president will answer questions via video link or something. Then the talk will begin that is there a president or is it all just CGI. :D

Let's see, MY use of facts ... hmmm ... oh, here:

In this post ALONE I brought up the names of people involved in Nuremberg on the Soviet side along with some of the trials statistics. I rebutted your garbage US assassin argument with the Executive Orders banning them (including their numbers and a link). I've illustrated the concept of MAD...

...you know what? Just read the post. It's FULL of fun facts. :know:

Where's yours?
I don't have time for a link-fest right now although when it comes to _really_ basic stuff like US assassination attempts against Castro I sort of expect pretty much everyone to know that stuff. I'm not going to look for elementary stuff like that so pick up your game a little, ok?

[Aramike]

This is getting tedious. Here we go again, with broad, unsubstantiated claims. I'll just highlight a few and be done with this:Oh I see, so the lives of US soldiers are more valuable then those of Japanese civilians.Citizens that empowered their governments imperial ambitions (that some would call genocidal) in China, and allowed them to start a war against the US?

Yep. Our soldiers lives are more valuable. Sorry.
Meaning you can't prove what you write?Nice try with the "I know you are but what am I?" argument.

I'm actually asking YOU to prove YOUR assertion. You are the one who made the claim. Now back it up? Purple Unicorn?

I'm going to end it here. It's obvious that your intent is to make baseless claims over and over again in order to muddy the waters. There's CLEARLY no attempt to prove anything you say. And when you're asked to, you simply ask for your garbage to be disproven.

I have better use of my time than giving you the history lesson your 5th grade teacher missed.

One final thought that, I believe, sums up your credibility:I have to go to work in about 15 min but I'll get back to you later on this one although looking for info and not getting paid...When you assert a claim you should have the information already and not have to go looking for it.

:|\\

[baggygreen]

Im personally waiting to see proof that the US assassinated foreign leaders..:know:

If that cat comes out of the bag, and is verified, i'd be fascinated, truly.

Between OTH and aramike, I don't know if there is a communication breakdown, a language barrier, or something else, but OTH im afraid you've not yet provided a single evidenced, or linked claim to back up your argument (unless I've missed it in the myriad of posts). Aramike has used evidence to back up his assertions. From a debate's perspective, OTH is lagging behind.

Still, I'm enjoying the reading, and its not really resorting to the usual name-calling and personal insults that usually swamp these discussions.

[Mittelwaechter]

Well - not an assassination - but something to think about...

Mrs. Albright revealed some truth - maybe to fascinate you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

As I said before: education is our only weapon against this spiral of violence.
It may lead to insight, understanding and more tolerance.
Some guys here have a really simple view to the world: we are the good ones!

[August]

Citizens that empowered their governments imperial ambitions (that some would call genocidal) in China, and allowed them to start a war against the US?

Yep. Our soldiers lives are more valuable. Sorry.

Not to mention the fact that had we invaded Japan many, many more civilians would have been killed than died in the Atomic bombings.

[August]

Well - not an assassination - but something to think about...

Mrs. Albright revealed some truth - maybe to fascinate you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

As I said before: education is our only weapon against this spiral of violence.
It may lead to insight, understanding and more tolerance.
Some guys here have a really simple view to the world: we are the good ones!

Oh there was indeed an assassination. Mossedeqs pro-western predecessor in fact, which paved the way for him to take power, so yeah there is plenty to think about.

[caspofungin]

so you're saying because they helped put him in power, it was ok to help overthrow him? too bad the iranians didn't get a say in things.


Between OTH and aramike, I don't know if there is a communication breakdown, a language barrier, or something else, but OTH im afraid you've not yet provided a single evidenced, or linked claim to back up your argument (unless I've missed it in the myriad of posts). Aramike has used evidence to back up his assertions. From a debate's perspective, OTH is lagging behind.

Personally, I think they're arguing about 2 different things. aramike brings up the us in ww2 and immediately post ww2 to back up his assertations, while oth seems to be arguing about more recent events. one could argue that the motivations of the us when faced with the growth of communism and the ussr as a superpower are very different from the motivations of the us when there's no one around to put a limit on their acts.

true, oth isn't presenting much evidence, but aramike resorts to "straw man" arguments too. in terms of hard facts and logical validity, i think it's the usual internet opinionfest. in entertainment value though, it scores very highly. two thumbs, way up. :up::up:

[Aramike]

Citizens that empowered their governments imperial ambitions (that some would call genocidal) in China, and allowed them to start a war against the US?

Yep. Our soldiers lives are more valuable. Sorry.

Not to mention the fact that had we invaded Japan many, many more civilians would have been killed than died in the Atomic bombings.No doubt. Good point.

As far as assassinations go, I'm trying to find this pool if internation leaders' blood that US assassins have spilled. Having a hard time doing that.

You know the assassinations, right? The ones that OTH has stated occurred in the same post that he later claims US assassins are too "cowardly" to actually commit.

I think he'd be lucky to find more than 2 or 3 instances of ATTEMPTS prior to Ford's E.O. forbidding them. In fact, in his last post his only mention is, I don't have time for a link-fest right now although when it comes to _really_ basic stuff like US assassination attempts against Castro...Quite a _far_ cry from his _really_ basic claim of, when asked what leaders have been assassinated:Too many to name.:ping:

[mookiemookie]

Well - not an assassination - but something to think about...

Mrs. Albright revealed some truth - maybe to fascinate you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

As I said before: education is our only weapon against this spiral of violence.
It may lead to insight, understanding and more tolerance.
Some guys here have a really simple view to the world: we are the good ones!

Plenty more where that came from too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions

[August]

Plenty more where that came from too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions
The neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) of this article is disputed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute).
Please see the discussion on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions). (December 2007)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F)
Anarchist magazine might not be the most reliable source... :D

[Mittelwaechter]

Evil links we provide...

Better not read them whenever we have a fixed opinion about what's going on.
They may cause a reality flash.

Lean back and enjoy the comfortable little world we are used to know. The vision of the world we get instilled day by day.

And allways doubt the work others have done for you to reveal some truth. They are not neutral as we are!
Well - we would not thinlk about doing this amount of reseach to question our knowledge. Love to stay comfortable.
No need to learn on our side. WE are perfect!

WE have an independant media.
THEY simply try to manipulate the public.

WE only fight when the evil forces us to defend liberty and democracy.
THEY fight for fun, to see us bleed for the peaceful and tolerant people we are.

WE care for the rest of the world. Especially for free markets and moneyflow.
THEY want to steal a piece of our resources spread around the globe.

WE help our enterprises with subventions to feed the poor and save them from starvation. A little profit is fair.
THEY ask impertinent questions when we decide to burn the food insted for mobility and a little more profit. A little hunger is natural.

WE provide our famous achievments to benefit the world. This attitude justifies any inconvenience on their side.
THEY simply take the best from us and never ever give something for compensation.

WE show them civilisation and adorable culture - for free.
THEY are ungrateful and tell us imperialists.

WE care for the environment for hundreds of years.
THEY come up and start to pollute the air against any advice.

WE want YOU to understand this:
WE divide good and evil. YOU have to accept it.
WE have the power - we rule the world. YOU have the oil? No you don't!
WE shall be juged by our ideals. YOU shall be juged by your deeds.

[Mittelwaechter]

What's a reliable source, August?

[Aramike]

What's a reliable source, August?If I were to answer that question I would say that reputation and objectivity would be what qualifies something as reliable.

The latter is in short supply these days. Anarchist Mag doesn't have either, however.

[OneToughHerring]

Aramike & co.,

I'll compile a list but first we have to decide on the criteria. The US has had several assassination programs but what you guys are looking for is actual succesfull hits on leaders of nations? Like a president, king, queen etc. And the assassination has to be owned up to by the people who ordered it and carried it out? That might make it a bit difficult, you see the US doesn't like to own up on it's covert actions. Anyway, I'll look around.

My earlier statement of too many to name is based on assassinations of anyone, and not just by US but by it's allies, some trained in the art of assassination and torture by US in places like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Americas) (used to be The School of Americas). In my opinion, the assassination of any human is ultimately the same thing.

But anyway, a feeble attempt to get back on topic. Adjust the angle and the strength.

http://flash.vg.no/grafikk/2008/bush/kast_sko.html

[AVGWarhawk]

Seems our shoe thrower is asking for a pardon.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9555QEO0&show_article=1

Did the man really think there would be no repercussions?

[Aramike]

Aramike & co.,

I'll compile a list but first we have to decide on the criteria. The US has had several assassination programs but what you guys are looking for is actual succesfull hits on leaders of nations? Like a president, king, queen etc. And the assassination has to be owned up to by the people who ordered it and carried it out? That might make it a bit difficult, you see the US doesn't like to own up on it's covert actions. Anyway, I'll look around.

My earlier statement of too many to name is based on assassinations of anyone, and not just by US but by it's allies, some trained in the art of assassination and torture by US in places like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Americas) (used to be The School of Americas). In my opinion, the assassination of any human is ultimately the same thing.

But anyway, a feeble attempt to get back on topic. Adjust the angle and the strength.

http://flash.vg.no/grafikk/2008/bush/kast_sko.htmlYes, we are looking for hits on world leaders, which is specifically what we were talking about when this whole thing started and I admonished you for promoting the assassination of a democratically elected world leader. Following that, you claimed that it was a regular occurance (which I've demonstrated to be untrue). Following that, you contradicted yourself claiming then that US assassins are cowards.

Furthermore, you made an outlandish claim that wars the US has participated in has amounted to more casualties than all other wars combined (I think that's the gist, going from memory here). I stated that this is untrue and you asked me to prove it, thereby ignoring the burden of proving such a bold claim. Substracting the World Wars (as should happen due to the US provoking neither of them as America was fairly isolationist in that era), the faslehood is even more pronounced.

While I'd be the first one to agree that Vietnam was a costly, mistaken adventure, I believe the reason it was so costly was a lack of clear military objectives. (Just wanted to get that out of the way).

In any case, one could contend that the US has cost more lives by NOT going to war early enough, or in enough strength (referring to Somalia and Bosnia, specifically).

Which brings us full circle. I find state-sponsored execution deplorable, but I do NOT oppose the training of dissidents from fascist or dictator regimes in the art of assassination. I have a very firm belief regarding government: not matter what kind of government, democratic or otherwise, the PEOPLE of that nation are ultimately responsible.

Let's look at North Korea, for instance. Sure, Kim Jong-Il has absolute "power" ...but if the people simply decided not to follow him, he suddenly has no power. Now, one's argument will naturally be that he's practically holding his people at gun point. That's very true. However, if North Korea were to become an imminent threat to the world, it's people would be responsible.

Why? The bottom line is this: Let's say North Korea declares war on South Korea (something I believe is going to happen in the next 10 years). North Korea's people, afraid of their own government, man's its armies and industries, supporting the war. Now, instead of THEM risking THIER lives in response to their government's madness, another nation must shed blood as well.

Power over people can NOT be seized. It can only be willfully given.

You can draw whatever parallels to Iraq you want.

In any case, by training dissidents of a nation, countries like the US are attempting to further empower those who wish to confront the threat of their own leaders. I have no problem whatsoever with this, as it happens on BOTH sides.

And when it comes to evil regimes, the question is not whether there will be blood shed. The question is who will shed the blood.

Now I'm sure the typical leftie response will be that the US is the evil regime. Well, if we are, we are an extremely generous, democratically-elected evil regime. But, if you decide to make that claim, do so on it's merits. Give examples and reasons those examples are wrong. To just state that America is bad, BAD, shows intellectual weakness. And to state that it IS bad (present tense) then try to illustrate it with 200+ year-old evils, is even weaker and wholly irrelevent. Most modern nations have skeletons in their closets.

I may be wrong about this, but did you say you were from Finland? Well, I guess your nation's evil because after YOUR civil war in 1918, THOUSANDS of SUSPECTED Bolshevists were interned in camps and executed, or died via starvation. Far worse then McCarthyism, I would say...

True, but not terribly relevent, right?

The thing about this shoe-throwing coward is, by the way, he is just as culpable for Saddam's actions as the next guy. And he's throwing shoes to stake his claim. It's people like HIM who allowed Saddam's evil to prosper.

[subchaser12]

I'm going to end it here. It's obvious that your intent is to make baseless claims over and over again in order to muddy the waters. There's CLEARLY no attempt to prove anything you say. And when you're asked to, you simply ask for your garbage to be disproven.

I have better use of my time than giving you the history lesson your 5th grade teacher missed.



Waaa waaa, I'm packing up my ball and going home, but not before I fire off another insult!

[subchaser12]

As far as assassinations go, I'm trying to find this pool if internation leaders' blood that US assassins have spilled. Having a hard time doing that.



Ya think? Do you expect the CIA and Mossad to have a youtube and myspace profile with videos of their exploits?

[subchaser12]

Still, I'm enjoying the reading, and its not really resorting to the usual name-calling and personal insults that usually swamp these discussions.

You must not be reading Aramike's posts, he peppers all his writings with cliche insults. He can do that because he is a right winger. As soon as a "lefty wacko" does it you will see 50 mods jump all over him.

[Aramike]

Subchaser, do you actually try to form thoughts or does your drivel just fall randomly onto your keyboard?

Good job trying to chastise me for hedging an insult via hedging an insult. Can't be THAT bad if you do it, right?

Even though you never have ANYTHING substantive and factual to say (your last couple posts towards me illustrate that quite clearly), I do have to thank you for answering the perennial question about an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters... Shakespeare, it's not. It's your debate arguments. :rock:
You must not be reading Aramike's posts, he peppers all his writings with cliche insults. He can do that because he is a right winger. As soon as a "lefty wacko" does it you will see 50 mods jump all over him.To quote you, WAAA WAAA, baby can't handle a little light barb?

Hah, your wacked-out conspiracy theories even apply to a message forum! Victim mentality, anyone?

[subchaser12]

Subchaser, do you actually try to form thoughts or does your drivel just fall randomly onto your keyboard?



Thanks for proving my point about the insults. Make sure you yell out a big "damn straight" when you watch Bill O'Really tonight on Faux News. :p

[subchaser12]

To quote you, WAAA WAAA, baby can't handle a little light barb?

Hah, your wacked-out conspiracy theories even apply to a message forum! Victim mentality, anyone?

Look kids, we got Aramike on here having a nervous breakdown. I need to make popcorn, someone poke him, preferably someone from Europe, the right wingers really hate that.

[Aramike]

As far as assassinations go, I'm trying to find this pool if internation leaders' blood that US assassins have spilled. Having a hard time doing that.



Ya think? Do you expect the CIA and Mossad to have a youtube and myspace profile with videos of their exploits?Oh, so you can't prove anything but you just KNOW it's there! Thank goodness we have such gifted minds as yourself, able to detect the activities of people that are so well hidden from even YOU... :doh:

See, the funny thing is ... if world leaders are being assassinated, maybe the identity of the killers aren't immediately apparent, but the fact that a world leader was assassinated is. Which world leader would that be, genious? :rotfl:

Edit: HAHAHAHAH!!! In your last two posts you blatantly avoid quoting the part that demonstrates your insults!!! LOL!

Who's having the breakdown?

I've decided I won't gratify your idiotic comments any further. We'll let the reader decide who actually has something to say and who's just being an idiot.

Now step aside and let the grown-ups talk.

[Aramike]

http://archive.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10268220.html

I'm sure he apologized spontaneously all by himself.Heh, probably had a little "help". That being said, people are quick to forget the point this cartoon starkly illustrates: http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon121708.gif

[OneToughHerring]

Aramike,

are you like, five? Since you seem to be by the keyboard why don't you address my previous long post in full, especially the parts about slavery and the indigineous people of the US. I think I'd like to hear some FACTS too so I'd get a sense of what FACTS means to you. I mean, besides Fox news etc.

[subchaser12]

I've decided I won't gratify your idiotic comments any further. We'll let the reader decide who actually has something to say and who's just being an idiot.

I think that is abundantly clear at this point. :rotfl:

[Aramike]

Aramike,

are you like, five? Since you seem to be by the keyboard why don't you address my previous long post in full, especially the parts about slavery and the indigineous people of the US. I think I'd like to hear some FACTS too so I'd get a sense of what FACTS means to you. I mean, besides Fox news etc.I don't have time to sit here and address your unsubstantiated and increasingly irrelevent points one by one. Sorry.

Oh, and I *DID* address your attempt to bring the USA's past into the debate. From my post:To just state that America is bad, BAD, shows intellectual weakness. And to state that it IS bad (present tense) then try to illustrate it with 200+ year-old evils, is even weaker and wholly irrelevent. Most modern nations have skeletons in their closets. I then went on to give an example of some evils from the history of what I believe is your nation. It was a wholly irrelevent waste of my time, but I indulged you anyway. I must be bored.

[Aramike]

The thing about this shoe-throwing coward is, by the way, he is just as culpable for Saddam's actions as the next guy. And he's throwing shoes to stake his claim. It's people like HIM who allowed Saddam's evil to prosper.

That's very true, but at least he stood up against Maliki and Bush while all the others are still quiet and thus allow Bush sponsored Maliki's evil to proper. Maliki closed TV stations and newspapers, has no problem with torture, he's sectarian, doesn't care one bit about Human rights let alone women rights, and so on.

So yeah Saddam was evil, we all know that thank you. But between killing the shoe thrower and torturing him until he apologizes, is there really a large enough difference that justifies a war and a 5 years long (and counting) occupation ?Like I said (and certain people wish to ignore) before, I'm not trying to justify the war. I'm not going to even reveal whether or not I agree with the war (although SOME people think they've got me figured out). I'm just doing what I always try to do - examine information objectively, interpret nuance, and avoid the trap of clouding my judgement with an agenda.

My feelings on the war are far more complicated than the scope of this thread, but I highly doubt that anyone here would be able to guess my stance and it's reasons.

[subchaser12]

That's very true, but at least he stood up against Maliki and Bush while all the others are still quiet and thus allow Bush sponsored Maliki's evil to proper. Maliki closed TV stations and newspapers, has no problem with torture, he's sectarian, doesn't care one bit about Human rights let alone women rights, and so on.

So yeah Saddam was evil, we all know that thank you. But between killing the shoe thrower and torturing him until he apologizes, is there really a large enough difference that justifies a war and a 5 years long (and counting) occupation ?

George Orwells Animal Farm might as well have been written about Iraq. Saddam Hussein is of course Mr. Jones. People keep saying "remember how bad it was when Mr. Jones was here!"

For the Iraqi people not a damn thing has changed, things are worse actually, only the names of their torturers have changed. Look at Abu Ghraib, the Americans tortured the Iraqis in the same prison Saddam did. That just wasn't too well thought out was it? So much for that whole "they will greet us as liberators BS".

As for Maliki, well if he doesn't take a plane out with the Americans when they withdraw and go into exile he will be deader than Juluis Ceasar when the bloodbath starts over rule of Vietraq. Maliki and Chalabi can go golfing together.

[subchaser12]

You say Saddam was evil and you compare the situation with what it would have been under Saddam, is that really the only benchmark available that makes the current situation in Iraq looking good ?

The bottom of the barrel on positive spin for Vietraq was scraped away years ago. I doubt it's possible to lower the bar any lower on any shred of American positive outcomes in Vietraq.

Soon America will be telling Iraqis "Look, just be thankful we didn't use our nuclear arsenal on you." So there you have it Iraq, proof how much America loves you, we didn't nuke you. Now kiss our butts....

haha

[August]

Look at Abu Ghraib, the Americans tortured the Iraqis in the same prison Saddam did.

Right, like those humiliation games committed by a few rogue guards that were subsequently prosecuted could even compare to acid showers, drilling into knee joints, and all the other really bad things that Saddams torturers did to their victims.

This is where your moral equivalency arguments will always fail. In your hatred of all things not Democrat you have no sense of perspective.

[subchaser12]

Look at Abu Ghraib, the Americans tortured the Iraqis in the same prison Saddam did.

Right, like those humiliation games committed by a few rogue guards that were subsequently prosecuted could even compare to acid showers, drilling into knee joints, and all the other really bad things that Saddams torturers did to their victims.

This is where your moral equivalency arguments will always fail. In your hatred of all things not Democrat you have no sense of perspective.

Hold on there, I agree with you. Of course there is no comparison to the kinds of torture. I'm not saying that at all. Personally I don't see what they were complaining about with the girl in the boots putting her underwear on the guys head and dragging them around with a leash around their neck. I have to pay like 400$ an hour for that treatment here in the states.

Seriously though, the fact that the American torture is more gentle than Iraq style is irrelevant. We claimed we were going to liberate Iraqis from that and what ended up happening was America saying "yeah well, we only juice your balls with half the electricity that Saddam's people did.

That isn't going to be winning any hearts and minds now is it?

[OneToughHerring]

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Castro_Assassination_Plots

I'm sure the facts on that link will measure up. Doesn't prove the part about the assassins being cowards, that part I remember from a documentary where they interviewed some of the people responsible for hiring some of the assassins to kill Castro. They admitted that quite a few of the assassins chickened out. Interestingly, one of the guys involved in the hiring process said that he suggested they hire Arabs instead of Latin assassins because "Those guys don't get afraid". :D

[Aramike]

I didn't ask you what you think of the war, I don't care actually. I'm just saying that calling this man a coward is ludicrous, and saying that he should actually be thankful toward Bush because he's still alive after throwing his shoes at him is just as ludicrous. You say Saddam was evil and you compare the situation with what it would have been under Saddam, is that really the only benchmark available that makes the current situation in Iraq looking good ?Well, we should just agree to disagree.

That man is a coward, plain and simple. The Human Rights abuses of Saddam and the current regime aren't even comparable. There's a HUGE difference here, that I think you're glossing over.

To wit, read the Wiki articles regarding Human Rights during the Saddam era and post invasion. Here's the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iraq

My point becomes apparent when contrasting the two articles. The article referring to post-invasion lists very specific abuses committed by very specific individuals, often times showing details to the punishment.

Looking at the page referring to Saddam's regime, there aren't much in the way of specific instances against specific individuals. You're talking murder on the scale of THOUSANDS.

But also, you have to look at it as a matter of perspective as well. A 14 year-old girl raped (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/16/myspace_meeting_rape/) in Chicago is a sick, heinous crime. If it happens in Iraq it's a human rights violation.

I remember an instance a couple years ago when there were 20+ killings in Chicago on the same day. That story was on page 4 or 5 of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. A couple weeks later, the same story occurred ... in Bagdhad. Front page coverage.

[August]

Seriously though, the fact that the American torture is more gentle than Iraq style is irrelevant. We claimed we were going to liberate Iraqis from that and what ended up happening was America saying "yeah well, we only juice your balls with half the electricity that Saddam's people did.

That isn't going to be winning any hearts and minds now is it?

Of course not, but no prison system (or any other system for that matter) ever instituted by man hasn't had at least a few bad apples in it. They are after all human.

Besides look at the aftermath of Abu Grahib. I seriously doubt Saddam ever prosecuted his troops like we did ours.

[subchaser12]

But also, you have to look at it as a matter of perspective as well. A 14 year-old girl raped (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/16/myspace_meeting_rape/) in Chicago is a sick, heinous crime. If it happens in Iraq it's a human rights violation.



It's an ocean of difference when it's military members of the occupation doing the killing and raping to the occupied in uniform. What makes it even worse is that it stems from an illegal occupation in the first place. Rapes happen anywhere and everywhere in the world you have males and females. It's a whole different ballgame when it's an army of occupation raping the people they are claiming "liberate".

America is in Iraq for oil, not to liberate. They will burn in hell if there is one for saying the war was about "liberation".

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah we'll have to disagree, this man isn't a coward, period.

For the rest I'll leave it at that, it seems we can't understand what the other one is saying. Just one thing, when someone rapes a 14yo girl in Chicago, he faces big jailtime or even death penalty, that's the difference. Women rights in Iraq are actually worse off now than under Saddam.

Not from what I recently read. TIME magazine said that the women are slowing coming back to better living then when Saddam was in charge. The women would not drive or walk the streets to the market for fear of Taliban attack. These women are slowing going back to driving vehicles, etc. It will take a bit of time but I believe the women will be better off.

[AVGWarhawk]

But also, you have to look at it as a matter of perspective as well. A 14 year-old girl raped (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/16/myspace_meeting_rape/) in Chicago is a sick, heinous crime. If it happens in Iraq it's a human rights violation.


It's an ocean of difference when it's military members of the occupation doing the killing and raping to the occupied in uniform. What makes it even worse is that it stems from an illegal occupation in the first place. Rapes happen anywhere and everywhere in the world you have males and females. It's a whole different ballgame when it's an army of occupation raping the people they are claiming "liberate".

America is in Iraq for oil, not to liberate. They will burn in hell if there is one for saying the war was about "liberation".

Find me an army that did not rape and pillage and I will find you a left handed smoke shifter with 5 speeds.

[Aramike]

Yeah we'll have to disagree, this man isn't a coward, period.

For the rest I'll leave it at that, it seems we can't understand what the other one is saying. Just one thing, when someone rapes a 14yo girl in Chicago, he faces big jailtime or even death penalty, that's the difference. Women rights in Iraq are actually worse off now than under Saddam.Actually, I'm referring to this instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings.\

The perpetrators here are facing severe criminal charges.

I also disagree with women's rights being worse in Iraq now than before. I believe that it is an issue of transparency and perception, meaning, we have a clearer picture of what's actually going on regarding women.

[AVGWarhawk]

http://archive.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10268220.html

I'm sure he apologized spontaneously all by himself.

Probably not because of the beatings but you know, if it was Saddam dodging the shoes...the journalist would be dead, his family would be dead, his dog would be dead and his name completely wiped off the face of the earth in some unmarked grave in the middle of the desert. Much like the hundreds of others that Saddam did not like. So, is a bit of democracy coming forward here? Was the man shot on the spot and his family tortured? No, he made his statement by throwing a shoe and still living to talk about it. So, take your pick.

[AVGWarhawk]

Look at Abu Ghraib, the Americans tortured the Iraqis in the same prison Saddam did.
Right, like those humiliation games committed by a few rogue guards that were subsequently prosecuted could even compare to acid showers, drilling into knee joints, and all the other really bad things that Saddams torturers did to their victims.

This is where your moral equivalency arguments will always fail. In your hatred of all things not Democrat you have no sense of perspective.
Hold on there, I agree with you. Of course there is no comparison to the kinds of torture. I'm not saying that at all. Personally I don't see what they were complaining about with the girl in the boots putting her underwear on the guys head and dragging them around with a leash around their neck. I have to pay like 400$ an hour for that treatment here in the states.

Seriously though, the fact that the American torture is more gentle than Iraq style is irrelevant. We claimed we were going to liberate Iraqis from that and what ended up happening was America saying "yeah well, we only juice your balls with half the electricity that Saddam's people did.

That isn't going to be winning any hearts and minds now is it?


Just one question, what torture was inflicted by America on the Iraqi people?:hmm: What half juice did we put on the Iraq street vendor on the corner of 5th and main downtown Bagdad? The only torture I'm aware of is Gitmo. So what you are saying is America is torturing like Saddam did?

[Aramike]

I don't see how things would get better for women in the future with a rather conservative and sectarian Maliki instead of a secular Saddam. You know those hundreds of thousands of people tortured, raped, and killed by Saddam?

Many were women, too.

They are already better off.

Just because Saddam was secular, doesn't mean he would be better for women's rights.

[Aramike]

Weren't you complaining about outlandish claims and uninformed people ?Umm, what's outlandish about that? Saddam killed 100s of thousands. This is well documented. He employed rape squads - also well-documented.

You think all the victims were men?

Not an outlandish claim ... simple facts. Read the Wiki page I posted previously regarding human rights.

[Aramike]

Here, I'll do the legwork even. From this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq. From that articleDocumented human rights violations 1979-2003Human rights organizations have documented government approved executions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_(legal)), acts of torture, and rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape) for decades since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979 until his fall in 2003.

If you're trying to posit that human rights and women's rights are different things, I believe you can't have the latter without the former.

That, sir, is an opinion. Not an "outlandish" or "uninformed" claim.

[Mittelwaechter]

...

Just one question, what torture was inflicted by America on the Iraqi people?:hmm:

...

http://img3.imagebanana.com/img/l8vmgheo/IraqiChildCrying.jpg

None! Only loving care over there!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9118474

Edit:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/15/60minutes/main2574973.shtml

[Aramike]

I've read that page and it says nothing like that. You have to make the difference between women killed because they were kurd or koweiti as was the case under Saddam, and women who are killed because they are women as is the case now. I'm talking about women rights, not something else.
Honor killings weren't common under Saddam, Iraq was one of the few arab countries were sharia law wasn't the law, women were free to drive their car and they could go wherever they wanted (except abroad where they had to be along with a male family member from '91 on).
Now with the religious militias vastly sponsored by the US as long as they keep things relatively calm, things are very different. So yes you saying plainly "Women are already better off" out of the blue is outlandish.

Btw the link to Gay rights at the bottom of the wiki page is interesting as well.Like I said, my opinion is that you can't have women's rights without human rights. And it's clear that human rights have improved dramatically.

Women are better off simply because everyone is better off. Not outlandish, but a fact.

[Aramike]

...

Just one question, what torture was inflicted by America on the Iraqi people?:hmm:

...

http://img3.imagebanana.com/img/l8vmgheo/IraqiChildCrying.jpg

None! Only loving care over there!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9118474

Edit:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/15/60minutes/main2574973.shtmlYou could find scenes like these in every major metropolitan city anywhere. No matter where you go, there are bad seeds. Isn't there another side of the story not being told?

[Aramike]

Umm, the violence is what makes the scene; not the uniform. There's probably not much sand in Paris, either.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1389000/Man-kills-eight-in-Paris-gun-attack.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL0257077720080302
http://www.thelocal.se/11380/20080427/

[Mittelwaechter]

The emptiness of a frozen heart echoes in cynical crudity.

[subchaser12]

Aramike, I find all these examples you give such as "pfft, we have 20 shootings a day in Chicago, 14 year olds get raped here hourly, etc" really sad. I mean it's not that you are wrong, but when you can find all the atrocities that occour in Baghdad here in America I really have to ask the question "who they hell our we to spread our crappy culture at gunpoint over there?"

By your own admission it's clear America isn't in any position to tell people in other countries how to play nice and run their country. By your examples we obviously won the war in Iraq and succeded in spreading our "democracy" since you keep citing Iraq rapes and violence as the same things that happen in Chicago or in other American cities.

Also the number of Iraqi prostitutes in surrounding countries has skyrocketed since the war began. As usual with any war the most helpless member of society suffer the most, the women and children. The Iraq war has been a godsend for the local women and child prostitution business. Go ahead and dismiss that as "enemy propaganda" if it helps you sleep better at night. Iraq was one of the more progresive muslim nations. Notice in the media it's rare to see Iraqi's in turbans and robes? They are usually in pants and western style shirts. The truth is the west loves putting the local muslim religious nutbags in charge so they can do the murder and oppression for us.

I for one and just so surprised the same nation than can't even control it's Washington DC, Chicago or LA ghettos can't control Iraq. I mean if you can't keep the projects clamped down that are only miles from the whitehouse how you supposed to handle all of Iraq?

Now go ahead and ask yourself "why do they hate us?"

[subchaser12]

Steven Colbert summed up Iraq perfectly when he said "they say the government that governs least governs best, and by that standard we have set up an outstanding government in Iraq".

haha

[Iceman]

http://archive.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10268220.html

I'm sure he apologized spontaneously all by himself.

Someone probably coaxed him with a shoe..lol..I couldn't resist lol. :)

[subchaser12]

http://archive.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10268220.html

I'm sure he apologized spontaneously all by himself.

Someone probably coaxed him with a shoe..lol..I couldn't resist lol. :)

That man has been being tortured ever since that happened while the people on this board call him a "coward". He hasn't been seen for 4 days. I'm sure his face is so destroyed we could not recognize him anyway.

I'm sure they will say he killed himself in prison after they torture him until he dies.

That's ok Maliki, enjoy being a tryant now. Your time will come fast big man when America pulls out.

[Koondawg]

You too can own a fine pair of these shoes...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8bc_1229642777

enjoy..

KD

[PeriscopeDepth]

http://archive.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10268220.html

I'm sure he apologized spontaneously all by himself.
Someone probably coaxed him with a shoe..lol..I couldn't resist lol. :)
That would be funny if it was sure they hadn't actually tortured him with much worse for throwing a shoe at the fearless leader.

PD

[Jimbuna]

You too can own a fine pair of these shoes...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8bc_1229642777

enjoy..

KD

LOL "sh!t covered shoes" :rotfl:

[Foxtrot]

Bush should be thankful that he was not attacked by a BIG BLACK dildo

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Bush should be thankful that he was not attacked by a BIG BLACK dildo

Dongcopter :D

[AVGWarhawk]

...

Just one question, what torture was inflicted by America on the Iraqi people?:hmm:

...

http://img3.imagebanana.com/img/l8vmgheo/IraqiChildCrying.jpg

None! Only loving care over there!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9118474

Edit:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/15/60minutes/main2574973.shtml


I'm sure you can find plenty of humanitarian efforts as well. Always two sides to every story. Unfortunate we only hear the side that drives up ratings for the news.

[AVGWarhawk]

Of course there's humanitarian gestures, remember that soldier who put her career at risk to take care of an Iraqi ... dog. I'm sure this nullifies the killing of a handful of Iraqi bystanders by some trigger happy loons in US uniforms.

Again, another cherry pick....however, you forget, she put her life on the line by deploying to Iraq. So I guess she is just an egghead.

[Mittelwaechter]

I allways knew the cohorts of the willing are deeply misunderstood.
Of course the forces are sent to Iraq for humanitarian purposes. That's what they're trained for. That's what they are indoctrined for. That's what the whole equipment is made for. Those cowardish sand******s simply misconstruct our love and care actions.

We should paint a red cross on our tanks and aircrafts to clarify the intentions. Maybe we should pack some medical dressing material to our warheads to emphasise our attitude. It would be appreciated by the folks at home.

See what we are doing for them! WE really do care for the world! No doubt - we are the good ones!

Now shut up you unpatriotic peaceagitators!

[August]

Now shut up you unpatriotic peaceagitators!

You mean of course the peace agitators who would prefer we had left Saddam in charge right?