|
|
smisek
Hired Hero
|
posted April 04, 2003 12:26 PM |
|
|
I am from Europe, I live in USA for about 4 years, I really like this country, you can find here everything from mountaines, beaches, forest to oceans and deserts, people in general are here very nice, although to my taste most of them is quite naive and less educated then people in europa, however this is mostly due to your education system which by my opinion sux badly (elementary and high schools, universities are ok), most people here wonder why people all around the world hate america, what they fail to see is that those people hate mostly your goverment which is really bad, the foreign policy of the white house really sucked last 50 years and I cant say I like your policy of izolacionism in world war 1 and part in ww2 either, usa as country have quite a military history, the war with mexico is nice example that usa are conquering other land as many other countries did in the past, what or who does give usa the power to lecture other countries how they should behave ? Nobody have the right to interfere with internal matters of sovereign country as Iraq is.Saddam killed lot of kurds but so did Turkey (they killed even more), why dont usa care about that ? Saddam is certainly dictator but so is many other dictators in Africa, why does not usa cares about that ? Saddam is breaking UN resolution for 12 years, do does israel for 50 ! years, nobody cares about that... it does not mean that because most of the americans do not know or do not care for such things that the rest of the world does not care either, at this point usa have some serious problem, economic is down down, education, health, social security system all sux, bancrupcy of big companies... what president would go to the other end of the world and spend 75 000 0000 000$ (which will be most likely just downpayment) on totally unjustified war rather then fix some things at home ? They were terroristic attack, yes, its very sad thing, but you should also see what leads to this kind of behaviour, it is always good to try to find the cause of the problem, by my opinion usa should NOT interfere with affairs which are not directly affecting usa, as simple as that, usa are not the land of democracy and freedom, question is if it ever was, as somebody said be affraid and paranoid because its patriotic, I have to say that american level of patriotism is the same as was in 1930ties in germany, its on the edge with fanatism, why are you guys supporting bush when:
1. iraq is no more threat to usa then dozens ! of other countries in the world
2. bush won the election by cheating, just simply was appointed by supreme cort, meaning he got there more friends then gore did
3. iraq was long time aly of usa and you gave him chemical and biological weapons and now you are complaining ? you should make up your mind and not change relationships each couple years, yesterday enemy, today friend, tomorrow enemy, what kind of f*** policy is that ?
4. he does not give a F*** about needs and problems of regular us citizien, he rather cares for big companies and for those who brough him to power
5. he does not have any respect at all for other nations and UN, remember all the protests against war ? he did not give a dam about that
from the day the usa sent 1st soldier to gulf it was clear that war is imminent, you do not ! send 200 000 soldiers unless you want to fight big time, the whole thing with UN was just to convience regular usa people that bush tried which is obviously big BS, inspectors said that saddam IS cooperating, your president is simple agressor and he is taking whole country with him. Usa will win in iraq no doubt about that, iraqis have about same chances to win as had the indians which you killed in last centuries, u cant lose when soldier with M16 and buletproof vest fight vs guy holding bow and arrows, I am also sick of this "cult of heroes", as somebody said.. kill 1 and you are murderer, kill milion and you are hero, is not it sad ? Is not bigger heroism to refuse follow orders which will to kill innocent people rather then kill 10, 20 people ? I could go on and on but I dont want to sound too anti-american, as I said I like this country and I feel sorry for you folks that you have such leader as bush is, I wish your guys make it back from gulf in good health coz they are as innocent as the iraqis, same innocent as were nazis, they were too just following orders
____________
********
nihil novi sub sole
********
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 02:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Polk a Democrat was president during the Mexican-american war. McKinley a Republican was president during the Spanish-American war.
Thank you, wasn't sure, no time to check when I wrote that 
As for the whole democrat/republican idea, I really don't care much either way, the party thing means little to me as a Brit frankly. You also have to consider the long and troubled list of conflicts engaged by the two parties like Panama and others. Though not large wars, these conflicts, with their less coverage in terms of discussions, media etc often show the real face of any one government, ie when the cameras are not there what the government of any country will allow it's troops to do or do themselves because no-one's watching to closely.
Quote:
It is ironic to me how so many people in this thread...write like they think Saddam is the good guy and Bush/Blair are the bad guys...truly amazing what people will defend and minimize because they have an axe to grind against Americans.
I don't think that, I'm merely sick of this one-sided attitude that somehow the actions of the iraquis are confined to their army, that somehow the UK and US never do these kinds of things or other armies. They do, everyone does. It's pointless demonising the Iraqui army for actions which are not entirely rare amongst other armies either.
Quote:
Today they stated that coalition forces are no where near Baghdad and yesterday they/Saddam said victory was within their grasp...LOL
I'd just like to add here that when watching ITN yesterday they mentioned that the americans had claimed to be fighting around Sadam airport near bagdhad. When they asked their reporters for confirmation of this some time later, the reporter said that there had been no americans seen there at all, and that the Iraquis were lounging around unconcerned at the apparent "closeness" of all these americans. Misinformation is not purely Iraqui either.
Edit: I read today they have "taken" the airport, but at the time of the TV reporters comments (about 5:00pm GMT), he had not seen any americans and apparently neither had the Iraquis.
Quote:
Kennen and Dulles
Dulles I think was secretary of state a fair while back, get back to you on that.
Quote:
But as I mentioned...most of the reports are in the "fire of battle" mostly by frontline soldiers who claim to have seen it themselves...so there is a slight possibility that they could be incorrect.
I'd say there's an excellent chance of being wrong. There's hundreds of cases of missinterpreting the situation. It's remarkable how many times allied commanders in WWII described destroying Tiger tanks when in reality the killed panzers, panthers and even sometimes allied tanks! The videotape is obviously clear, hence why I offered no argument, but comments taken in the heat of battle should be supported by other evidence also.
Quote:
Most of the other horrific tactics that I mentioned were noticed and reported by more then one source.
But as you accept, these sources are not in full possession of the facts and often "spin things".
Quote:
People are funny. Facts are before their eyes and they want to look for anything that doesn't fit into their preconceived notions.
Indeed, you wish to show people as being biased against america/the republican party, when frankly I'm not. I have no idea which party most of your presidents belonged to, so I'm very much not anti-republican  It's the actions and reasons for the other conflicts that matter also too though. The ones you mentioned may be the biggest conflicts, but it's what nations and therefore politicians do during "peacetime" that also matters.
Quote:
See once again the Saddam appeasers prove logic has no place in their world. The USA lets embedded reporters in...and that is dismissed as the journalist are propagandist...if the USA wouldn't of allowed embedded reporters then people would of claimed that the USA is trying to hide something. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
1) Kindly don't generalise all people here under the term "sadam appeasers" if they disagree with you
2) I agree with your comment, that's life though.
Quote:
(PH is an exeption in my opinoin). All of those things were broadcast on mainstream TV and News websites. But I guess people won't allow information into their view if it shows the error of their ways.
Ta, Whilst I may sometimes catch the occaisional news programme, I rarely have time to watch TV these days, and my time online is limited through modding and things I have to do daily or thereabouts. That's why I tend to rely on others for news information. Nothing ignorant about it, just the same as peacemaker asking about WWII. She knows I'd probably know about the things she is unsure of. With me I just ask when I'm unsure about the news. Hardly ignorant
Quote:
I am amazed at your determination to minimize things. First, how long was it vacant
That's the whole point, you don't know and neither do I.
Quote:
a hospital is a place that cannot be attacked during war...so if the military is using a hospital that puts all hospitals at risk.
Granted if they were defending the building it would be reprehensable, but they weren't. They used an empty building as a staging point and when you arrived at the building they gave up without a fight. Hardly war-crime of the century.
Quote:
I hope you are kidding. BBC is a very good news organization...and I generally trust them and find them to be pretty comprehensive. But it has been seen many times that if anything the BBC has a leaning towards anti-regime change. There have been many articles I have seen that discuss this.
Nope, from what little I've seen of the BBC recently it's no better or worse than anyone else on TV. I meant the papers were pro regime change btw, bad wording on my part sorry. I have no idea of the BBC's stance not having watched it much.
Quote:
I would encourage you to not get any news from that source
Look on your sources then, you'll get the same result. The pentagon/uk say the 51st surrendered or disperesed. People in the news and here, including wolfman have used this to say it's evidence of mass surrnder. Clearly it is not, the 10,000 is hardly mass surrenders, more average for such one sided battles so far. It's an example of bad interpretations of the facts.
Oh and point 5 on your list of comparisons about "without provacation" is more than arguable.
Quote:
Hitler I believe was democratically elected
He was elected to the position of PM (think that's the term) with Hindenburg as chancellor (technically in charge of hitler, but Hindenburg was ancient and did nothing). He then proceeded to use some very undemocratic tactics like throw out opposition parties and bully voters. Soon after hindenburg died he had himself appointed chancellor, then renamed himself Fuhrer (leader). Not entirely democratic.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 03:01 PM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 4 Apr 2003
|
"See once again the Saddam appeasers prove logic has no place in their world. The USA lets embedded reporters in...and that is dismissed as the journalist are propagandist...if the USA wouldn't of allowed embedded reporters then people would of claimed that the USA is trying to hide something. Damned if you do, damned if you don't."
First, I think you are referring to me. I don't really know what 'appeaser' means, but I have the feeling I am no such thing. Stop insulting me, please!
Second, it's obvious they will lie, they will hide the truth and they use propaganda. This is common and natural.
Third, where do you think my logic's gone?
Anyways, (A) AND (not A) is a tautology, why do you miss logic here?
Maybe it's more about
((A=>B) AND ((not A)=>B)) => B
Edit: ok, I know now, I feed crocodiles. I was never good at making decisions so it is a valid point. However, I still don't feel like being generalised.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 03:17 PM |
|
|
Appeaser: Basically someone who will always try and offer the hand of peace to dictators rather than take the option of war.
As churchill said "An appeaser is someone who feeds a croccidile in the hope that he will be last" or something like that.
Whether it's an insult is entirely up to you really.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 04:28 PM |
|
|
Well dArGOn should just love this.
Iraqui MISinformation Minister, Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahif is droning on and on right now how th Iraqui Republican Army "turned Saddam International Airport" into a coalition greaveyard, how they sank four of our aircraft carriers, how the coalition has been brutally been driven back and defeated, etc. etc.
This after the last two days during which this same officer / and others over loudspeakers (since the power has been out) has repeatedly called for all civilians in Baghdad to rush to the airport, after asserting over and over again that coalition forces were hundreds of miles away and being driven back...
You know this is not to say that our military is not filtering the information coming through, that our information is not further filtered and/or spun by politically invested individuals, and that through a combination of these and other things we are not getting the whole story. But JEESE; this is just -- well -- IN YOUR FACE FLAT OUT TOTAL LIES.
Both undeniable and unforgivable.
I guess these things are a matter of degree.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 05:43 PM |
|
|
Hello Peacemaker,
interesting posting that partially gave me a lot to think about. We seem to agree so far as that Hitler comparisons should not be used in an inflationary way. Whether Saddam does wipe off Isreal from the map at night in his dreams or not, I don´t know. One could assume that quite a lot of people in the Arab world do that. I think it´s quite a different thing to build annihilation factories to "optimize" the number of dead Jews (and others who were considered "Untermenschen"), leading to more murders every day than Saddam did with all of his gas attacks against Kurds together.
But much more important than speculations about what Saddam would like to do and what not, whether 5000 and 6000000 are comparable numbers, is this one:Quote:
My point is that I think dArGOn was making a comparison of the potential threat Saddam poses in the form of empire-building and the threat that it in turn poses to the western world ...
What threat does Saddam pose to the western world? After the first Gulf War and 10 years of UN sanctions the land is completely ruined. And there is neither evidence for Saddam having WMD, nor for his contacts to terrorists. Do you really mean to compare this weak regime to Hitler, who was a threat to the whole world? If this is not unnecessary, unreasonable and inflationary use of a Hitler comparison, I do not know what is.
Peacemaker, you wrote:Quote:
personalization (or depersonalization) of the foe in such a way is a point that is not lost on me.
I think that this is the point here, and the sole reason why such a comparison is made at all.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 05:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1. Both have mustaches…hehe had to throw that one in.
2. Both had state run media/no free media
3. Both suppressed and killed all people who disagreed with them
4. Both practiced genocide
5. Both attacked neighboring countries with no provocation
6. Both practice brutal torture
7. Both are/were megalomaniacs
8. Both are/were secularists/atheists (though Lews and I disagree on this point).
9. Both had a central goal of uniting all people under their control (Hitler the Aryans and Saddam the Arabs)
10. Both used religion when it suited their purposes.
Now some of the ways they don’t compare
1. Hitler I believe was democratically elected
2. Hitler killed more people
3. Hitler had much stronger army
4. Hitler took over more countries
So in the end we find that they are completely identical except Hitler was elected and had more military might, therefore was able to kill more people.
Just to illustrate how stupid the above is, here´s a comparison of Hitler and Bush:
1. Both are Christians (although Hitler had more official support from the church than Bush)
2. Both think that they are are on a godly mission (Vorsehung/crusade)
3. Both spent huge efforts into propaganda and misinformation campaigns.
4. Both practiced the death penalty to an extreme degree.
5. Both broke international law by starting first strike attacks against other countries.
6. Both had an extremely large and powerful army
7. Both used it against comparably defenseless countries.
8. Both justified that as an act of self-defence.
9. Both are megalomaniacs, full of world domination ambitions.
10. Both had almost all of the world against him (two exceptions being Italy and Japan)
11. Both used the war to distract from economical problems.
12. Both are democratically elected ... no wait, this one is debatable.
So according to Dargon, I can come to the conclusion that Hitler and Bush are almost completely identical.
____________
|
|
smisek
Hired Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 06:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
1. Both have mustaches…hehe had to throw that one in.
2. Both had state run media/no free media
3. Both suppressed and killed all people who disagreed with them
4. Both practiced genocide
5. Both attacked neighboring countries with no provocation
6. Both practice brutal torture
7. Both are/were megalomaniacs
8. Both are/were secularists/atheists (though Lews and I disagree on this point).
9. Both had a central goal of uniting all people under their control (Hitler the Aryans and Saddam the Arabs)
10. Both used religion when it suited their purposes.
Now some of the ways they don’t compare
1. Hitler I believe was democratically elected
2. Hitler killed more people
3. Hitler had much stronger army
4. Hitler took over more countries
So in the end we find that they are completely identical except Hitler was elected and had more military might, therefore was able to kill more people.
Just to illustrate how stupid the above is, here´s a comparison of Hitler and Bush:
1. Both are Christians (although Hitler had more official support from the church than Bush)
2. Both think that they are are on a godly mission (Vorsehung/crusade)
3. Both spent huge efforts into propaganda and misinformation campaigns.
4. Both practiced the death penalty to an extreme degree.
5. Both broke international law by starting first strike attacks against other countries.
6. Both had an extremely large and powerful army
7. Both used it against comparably defenseless countries.
8. Both justified that as an act of self-defence.
9. Both are megalomaniacs, full of world domination ambitions.
10. Both had almost all of the world against him (two exceptions being Italy and Japan)
11. Both used the war to distract from economical problems.
12. Both are democratically elected ... no wait, this one is debatable.
So according to Dargon, I can come to the conclusion that Hitler and Bush are almost completely identical.
70 years ago when hitler came to power the time was human civilization was less developed then its today however as you pointed out they have many similarities and no doubt if bush will stay the dealer for as long as hitler did, he will bring usa to same end as did hitler with germany  )
____________
********
nihil novi sub sole
********
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 06:28 PM |
|
|
By the way, PH (HI!) Do you get CNN there? I noted that in one of your last posts you raised some question as to coalition position w/respect to Saddam International.
I've been letting CNN drone on in the bacmground while working the past three days, and yes, there is no question that we moved in on the airport just as had been reported. The reason I'm so sure of this is not through reliance on the statements of imbedded press. They have been showing pictures of it -- ongoing footage. Last night there was a tank battle on the highway in which coalition blew through several (was it 9?) tanks, which were captured on video then just sitting there for hours smouldering while an apparently abandonded camera was left running and aimed at them, just sitting there on the highway. Particularly disturbing about this lingering image (which they showed for at least two hours last night) was that there was an apparently dead Iraqi soldier, just lying there by one of the tanks (in my culture it is really UNCOOL and very disrespectful to display the dead in such a manner, but hey, personal perspective is certaint rearing its ugly head all over the place in this thing, ay???)
And then there was ongoing footage of several skirmishes down the highway toward the airport a ways. The reporter who accompanied them said he'd just been on that highway a few days before the war started, and noted how eerie it was that there they were, sitting on the same highway, in a tank and all. Personally, I find that first-hand account highly reliable, since a) it was verified by video images, and b) the verification of the location was by an individual familiar with the location.
So if some Americans have been sounding awfully sure about all this stuff lately in our posts it's because many of us are sitting around watching this kind of evidence (probably a highly unhealthy passtime, I admit). Anyway, we may be making some statements about this that sound like foregone conclusions because of this, where you might not have had the benefit of this same information since you are actually still in RL or so it sounds!!!
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 07:23 PM |
|
|
Hey, Lewws Therin! We must have been posting at the same time!
I think all your points are very good ones. I particularly find your portrayal of Iraq as in ruins compelling. If this is accurate, then all we are fighting is Saddam's inflated vision of himself, which only he shares (???)
I too am suspicious (translate fairly certain) that minds on both sides of this debate are hyperbolizing, perhaps without even knowing it, in order to support their preconceived positions. I don't necessarily subscribe to this comparison between Hitler and Saddam, but found some of the less biased people I know here in RL (some of them the liberel Jewish individuals I was referring to earlier) making this comparison, and in the way there were making it, it sounded somewhat compelling.
As you point out, swinging such a comparison around too loosely can be a tool of depersonalization since everybody universally agrees Hitler was a bad boy, and many have decided Saddam is a bad boy too so this comparison possess much leverage. Perhaps, as you suggest, too much. In the law business we would say you are making the argument that the "prejudicial effect" of this comparison outweighs any "probative value" the comparison might bring to the debate.
On the other hand, the real compelling comparison to me was PRE WWI Hitler,and my RL debating friends will probably concede this comparison comprises a large degree of speculation concerning where Saddam would have ended if left to his own devices.
The argument, though, is whether this is a real threat or not: I heard one analyst whose credentials sounded very reliable (of course whose name and location I cannot now recall) offer this analysis:
Saddam's a true megalomaniac; he perceives himself as the leader of the movement against the West. Oddly though, he is a secular leader. However, he is just the type of extremely charismatic personality that Pan-Islamism needs. Like Stalin (and yes, Hitler), he is capable of hypnotizing the people around him, as it were, into justifying doing things under his order that they would not otherwise do. I heard several on an NPR program who had even been his prisoners for a long period of time, find this man eerily compelling, and even likeable, when brought to his presence, after weeks of captivity and ill treatment by his hand. Oddly, as I was listening to this NPR report by these individuals, it came to my attention that they were US CITIZENS captured and held during the Gulf War. I don't know how much success he would have had uniting the fundamentalist Islamic world, but this report by these Americans was very disturbing to me.
Second, the analyst concluded that because he believed that it was his possession of his remaining WMD that resulted in the UN pulling out of the Gulf War eleven years ago, this analyst believed he would never give up whatever he had left willingly.
And what about this lack of cooperation during the inspections??? If he didn't have anything to hide, what was that all about? Or, how do you see the evidence we had started to find that he was hiding implements??? (Personally this evidence I heard during that period I found somewhat persuasive, although apparently reasonable minds differ over this a great deal. Some see it as justification for moving in, some see the evidence as miniscule fragments that have been overblown and used as an excuse).
So, anyway, I think the argument is that Saddam posed the greatest threat to unification of the movement against the west in the form of consolidation with, and/or hostile takeovers of, surrounding countries, empire/solidarity building in the anti-western world, and ultimately the use of nuclear leverage which he would have developed if left to his own devices.
My problem with this (and apparently yours as well): the threat he posed was largely a product of speculation, since I have yet to hear what the guy has actually done since the first Gulf War. Even this Hitler argument (the one I'm familiar with) is SPECULATION as to what he would have done if left to his own devices. The problems with this speculation in my mind are first, that arguably he would not have been able to spearhead solidarity in a Pan-Islamic movement because more people hate him than love him, and second, we did not have enough evidence (at least evidence that you and I are aware of) to justify attacking him now, based on the probability that he posed such a petential threat.
Once again, the real problem I have with thise whole argument is that we have done more to fuel Pan-Arabism and Anti-Americanism by attacking him, than he ever would have been able to do by himself. Like I said, you can't beat a hornet's nest with a baseball bat and expect not to get stung by the ones you miss. This is where my most bitter arguments occur here in RL. Fact is, I really don't want to be right about it now that we've engaged in the war, but I can't help returning here very time I think it through. I hope and pray I am wrong about this.
Finally, all you pro-war buffs out there, can you provide us with som objective, unemotional statement of the evidence of chemical weaponry (I'm talking about CURRENT hard evidence of possesion, not pre-Gulf War events, since Saddam's whole schtik is that he did not have any after that)???
Please don't take this request as a gauntlet. Those who know me on this post have figured out that when I ask a question like this it's usually with my finger up my nose rather than my tongue sticking out. In other words, I really just want to know the answer.
Finally, Lews, how if at all will your fellings about this all change if we discover bio-chemical weapons???
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 07:58 PM |
|
|
By the way, welcome smisek! We need more europeans posting in this thread -- obviously one of the problems with the U.S. is a lack of awareness of varying points of view. When I was in Europe with a tour group in 1979 (highschool) we were all amazed and humbled at how much more educated all the kids our age were everywhere we went. Sadly, people here in the U.S. are not aware of this, our educational system continues to suffer, and peoples' minds remain more closed than they are aware of because of this.
Fortunately, as you know, we have a two-term limitation on the presidency, precisely because we don't want a president turning into a Tyrant. However, BEWARE all of you who do not believe there is any comparison whatsoever. The Patriot Act was passed before it was ever even published, thus without Congress having even read it. The terms as I am aware of them could arguably be applied to many of the activities once taken for granted as rights to free speech. I for one have been branded a "criminal extremest" in a local Hooverite police database. Believe it. So far, luckily, it has not prevented me from boarding a plane and whatnot, but we'll see.
Some of you might wonder why I would announce such a thing on the internet. I'll tell you why. It really ****** ME OFF, it is slanderous, it is not true, and I absolutely demand my right not to have insidious, slanderous information secretly maintained about myself. There is absolutely no support for such a label. So in order to show it for the pathetic lie it is, I will demonstrate my utter lack of fear of this stupid brand , and lack of respect for the datanas in general, by announcing it publically.
Of course, I can hardly take it seriously, since along with people like me, that same database also contains practically every QUAKER with a voice in Denver in it, and they are also labelled "criminal extremests."
So, smisek, as you imply, in addition to not being as well-educated, America has been so lulled into a false sense of security that their eyes are closed to the revival of McCarthyism going on around them RIGHT NOW. If I'm a suspect then NO (WO)MAN IS SAFE.... GET IT GUYS??????
CRIPES. If I'm a criminal extremist, what are bort, csarmi, Sir Dunco, and the others whose names do no immediately come to mind????
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
FIREOFTRUTH
Bad-mannered
|
posted April 04, 2003 08:27 PM |
- penalty applied. |
|
Wolfman you ---- ---
Quote:
Yes, we do have freedom of speech, but some things just shouldn't be said. As the saying goes "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all".
Wolfman you are so ----- stupid by saying that a person should'nt be able to say whatever they want. If the can't handle it they should just leave and thats it. I had a 70 year old man conservative as hell come up and tell me the same thing because i had a t-shirt that said "Bush is not my president" all of the sudden he wants to be smart but I just told him to shut the --- up in front of everybody in the restaurant because that is out of place so it all comes down to what one says to appease the majority. The U.S.A. is done for we probably wont last another 100 years with people like Bush in command. Trying to get congress to give him money for the war and security when we need that money for jobs,education to fix the efconomy but hell its easier to distract people with a war. Plus by having Iran and North Korea scared that we will attack them next. That can only mean that a country that attacks agressively will become just as bad as germany under Hitler rule. And that crap that Bush talks about the war being justified and having support from God is so much B.S. but the american public is stupid and will believe anything. I cant wait to leave this fuked up country it is messed up even the BBC talk garbage about the US and they are supposed to be friends. All of the world is against this but Bush being as warmonger as he is wont listen to the people he is supposed to represent.
~Edited by Nidhgrin~
FireofThruth,
Everyone on this forum has the right to say whatever he or she wishes and I appreciate your input. There are rules here however, and by becoming a member of this community you have agreed on following those rules. A list of them, and the reasons why they were installed can be found [url=http://heroescommunity.com/faq.php3#rules]here[/url]. Please do not take this personally, your input is appreciated just as much as everyone elses but it is our duty as moderators to make sure the rules are followed. Please adjust your language to the code of conduct and use asterixes (*) in stead of swearwords. People will understand you just as well and you will break no more rules. I hope you understand and will spare yourself from further punishment in the future. ~Nidhgrin~
____________
|
|
Lich_King
Honorable
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 08:33 PM |
|
|
-Qp applied for direct insults
FIREOFTRUTH end your insultive posts now or you'll be silenced again.
____________
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 09:50 PM |
|
|
another just came to mind
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 11:43 PM |
|
|
|
Just leave it to him, Lich-King, we are gotten used to his style I think.
|
|
FIREOFTRUTH
Bad-mannered
|
|
posted April 05, 2003 02:05 AM |
- penalty applied. |
|
--- off Lich_King
I dont give a --- what u do Lich_King go mind your own business and --- yourself. Ill always be here so if u dont like it leave stupid -----. Oh and before I forget to tell you to go -- yourself in the ---------.
~Edited by Nidhgrin~
FireofThruth,
Everyone on this forum has the right to say whatever he or she wishes and I appreciate your input. There are rules here however, and by becoming a member of this community you have agreed on following those rules. A list of them, and the reasons why they were installed can be found [url=http://heroescommunity.com/faq.php3#rules]here[/url]. Please do not take this personally, your input is appreciated just as much as everyone elses but it is our duty as moderators to make sure the rules are followed. Please adjust your language to the code of conduct and use asterixes (*) in stead of swearwords. People will understand you just as well and you will break no more rules. I hope you understand and will spare yourself from further punishment in the future. ~Nidhgrin~
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 05, 2003 02:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
By the way, PH (HI!) Do you get CNN there? I noted that in one of your last posts you raised some question as to coalition position w/respect to Saddam International.
Yes and no, we get BBC Channel 4 News and ITN here on every television, then you need something like digital/satelite to see CNN. My own television does not have CNN, the living room one does, I was watching my own unfortunately, so no CNN.
Quote:
I've been letting CNN drone on in the bacmground while working the past three days, and yes, there is no question that we moved in on the airport just as had been reported.
Well ITN is not as reliable as the BBC, and I only heard it in passing. I only know that two days ago, comments from some news sources (unsure if they took their info of pentagon or not, that was never mentioned) said that the US were fighting for the airport. They then spoke to their reporter in the airport who said he'd not seen the americans all day and that there had been no sign of obvious worry amongst the Iraqui units there. Like I said, the timeframe could be in play here, I'm aware they fought over it last night and this morning and are now in posession of it, but the whole event shows to me the way that such information that does get released/reported to the press is often misinterpreted and therefore most of what we see or hear has to be questioned.
Quote:
Anyway, we may be making some statements about this that sound like foregone conclusions because of this, where you might not have had the benefit of this same information since you are actually still in RL or so it sounds!!!
Exactly, some people have that benefit that I don't have, but when they say such things without quantifying why they think that way, or what they've seen to say such a thing it's not hard to work out why others, not party to the info want clarification on the issue.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 05, 2003 02:24 AM |
|
|
Gotcha. As I unwittingly demonstrated the other day in WAR on IRAQ, making presumptions can be dangerous!!!
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2003 04:07 AM |
|
|
Hello Peacemaker!
Hmm, I´m a bit embarassed because I´m at work and I don´t have time and concentration to give a you detailed answer to your long post ... another reason for this is, that I hardly find anything in there that I disagree with . So I hope you don´t mind that I just concentrate on your question.
If the Iraq really has biological or chemical weapons, how much would that change?
First of all, we have seen quite a lot of misinformation (as you´ve rightly pointed out from both sides), and as such a piece of evidence is extremely important for the Bush administration, I very much expect that they find such weapons - one way or the other.
Second, if such weapons are found, I would first need to be convinced that these weapons pose a concrete threat to anyone. Concrete enough to justify the killing of thousands, maybe ten thousands of innocent people! Right now, this seems rather unlikely to me, as B or C weapons apparently haven´t been used in this war. Maybe it´s just me, but wouldn´t it be much easier for Saddam to use such weapons against the coalition army in his country, than to send them where American citizens live? Even if B or C weapons are found, I´d also like to see the device that is able to carry them all the way to America. Remember, part of Bush´s war propaganda was to instill fear into the American people, to paint the picture of a direct threat for the US posed by Saddam.
Sadly, I think the danger of terrorism against the west has never been worse than after this war has been started. A fire can hardly be quenched by pouring oil into it.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2003 04:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, we do have freedom of speech, but some things just shouldn't be said. As the saying goes "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all".
Very interesting, Wolfman. Please tell us, who has the legitimation to decide what should be said and what shouldn´t?
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
