Dr.Worthless Posted September 24, 2004 Report Posted September 24, 2004 How many other countries' citizens claim blindly claim their country is the best country in the world? Oh, so now opinions make you ignorant?
white_0men Posted September 24, 2004 Report Posted September 24, 2004 When the opinion is : Perhaps this is the essential difference between a true American and the rest of the world. Whatever the situation, America as a whole accepts the challenge, and faces the it with hope and hard work. Others simply run away.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yup.
Guest Recombo Posted September 24, 2004 Report Posted September 24, 2004 Having derived 'we are the best' out of that is one heck of a twist. Why fear the statement about what a country does? Facing situations means plenty of things. Somehow, our necromancing foreigners could only conjur up bad, bad, bad. Oh well.
white_0men Posted September 25, 2004 Report Posted September 25, 2004 America stands and fights while everyone else runs away? So what did you really mean when you said that? Fear about the statement? Huh? Necromancing foreigners? Huh?
»Ducky Posted September 25, 2004 Report Posted September 25, 2004 Sounds like he implied that US is the superior country in that particular situation.I don't remember standing and fighting on 9/12 though. I distinctly remember protesting any retaliation.
Guest Recombo Posted September 25, 2004 Report Posted September 25, 2004 I guess you enjoy being attacked. Ok you flaming gayb, -*BAD WORD*--sucking, monkey loving, flower-power groupie, sit there with your cold heart. Let me guess, you're not going to retaliate against me saying that because you 'oppose' retaliation. Get real. You will, and you'll eat your words.
Guest Recombo Posted September 25, 2004 Report Posted September 25, 2004 I'm going to retract that comment as it was meant to prove a point. I'm sure our cynical acquaintances will find merit in questioning 'what point'.
A Soldier Posted September 25, 2004 Report Posted September 25, 2004 "Insults: arguments employed by those who are in the wrong."- Jacques Rousseau
»Ducky Posted September 26, 2004 Report Posted September 26, 2004 *chuckle*Have you ever been in a fight.When you punch someone and he punches back, does the battle end?Violence begets violence. I am wrong because I decided that killing in any way is unacceptable.Oh no.You wins 3453:0 Good Job.
Vile Requiem Posted September 27, 2004 Report Posted September 27, 2004 You're right, we were all wrong about terrorists...apparently they don't operate in Iraq, or at least they didn't until Bush -*BAD WORD*-ed the place up http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm Notice the date and which country is conspiciously absent
Dr.Worthless Posted September 27, 2004 Report Posted September 27, 2004 You're right, we were all wrong about terrorists...apparently they don't operate in Iraq, or at least they didn't until Bush -*BAD WORD*-ed the place up http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm Notice the date and which country is conspiciously absent I'm glad you linked this vile, i've seen a huge influx of liberals using this as "proof" that al-qaeda wasn't in iraq. I find it horridly amusing that there generally isn't any arguements that terrorists operated in virtually every nation surrounding Iraq, but magically the terrorists stayed out of Iraq. Generally the arguement I hear is that "Saddam had such a stranglehold on iraq that he kept them out, with an Iron Fist!!" To which my reply is, Saddam openly supported terrorists, he offered payments to the family's of suicide bombers. He openly opposed terrorists movements against israel, he even had confirmed talks with Bin-Laden (yes, he declined bin-laden asking if he could setup training camps in Iraq, but there was still communication, and if bin-laden felt that he didn't atleast have *some* chance of saddam saying yes, he wouldn't have asked..) Finally, Al-Qaeda does not == terrorism. There ARE other terrorist networks out there that ARE plotting attacks. Granted, Hussein probably did deter some terrorism in his country with his Imprison/kill first, ask questions later policy. (Why is it the world community didn't act to stop this guy sooner? I'm forgetting. And why is Iraq of such an interest now when it wasn't for the last decade.. ?) To say America caused terrorism in Iraq is nieve. Worthless
Bacchus Posted September 27, 2004 Report Posted September 27, 2004 Might not have "created" it, but you sure as -*BAD WORD*- encouraged it. To believe otherwise is not only naive, it's [insert better word here].
Vile Requiem Posted September 27, 2004 Report Posted September 27, 2004 Ok, never mind about the rest of it, this is Pulitizer worthy work right here, and it sure as -*BAD WORD*- opened my eyes about WTF is causing all this -*BAD WORD*-. http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html Even 99% of liberals have no idea about this. It fills in so many of the gaps of exactly why certain dates were chosen and such, but mainly it's just sick.
MonteZuma Posted September 27, 2004 Report Posted September 27, 2004 I'm glad you linked this vile, i've seen a huge influx of liberals using this as "proof" that al-qaeda wasn't in iraq. The US Department of State admits that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq and you still don't believe it? C'mon. The only person you are kidding is yourself. I find it horridly amusing that there generally isn't any arguements that terrorists operated in virtually every nation surrounding Iraq, but magically the terrorists stayed out of Iraq. Generally the arguement I hear is that "Saddam had such a stranglehold on iraq that he kept them out, with an Iron Fist!!" That is probably correct, to a point. I'm sure Hussein didn't want to destabilise his own leadership. Al Qaeda wants to establish a theocracy in the middle east. That is clearly not what Hussein wanted. Now that Hussein has been removed from power, Al Qaeda and every other wannabe islamic tyrant sees an opportunity in Iraq. An opportunity to wrest power. And an opportunity to embarr!@#$%^&* the US and the west. (Why is it the world community didn't act to stop this guy sooner? I'm forgetting.Because the consequences flowing from his removal could be worse than the consequences of leaving him there. And why is Iraq of such an interest now when it wasn't for the last decade.. ?Because Bush Jnr had a bee in his bonnet. To say America caused terrorism in Iraq is nieve. True up to a point, but to use a lame analogy: If I cut someone off in traffic and they honk their horn at me, I didn't cause that either. Or did I?
Dr.Worthless Posted September 27, 2004 Report Posted September 27, 2004 True up to a point, but to use a lame analogy: If I cut someone off in traffic and they honk their horn at me, I didn't cause that either.HuH? You lost me.. The US Department of State admits that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq and you still don't believe it? C'mon. The only person you are kidding is yourself. In the literal sense no, they weren't in Iraq. I'm trying to point out that Saddam would have no reason to NOT support them if they are attacking his enemies.. If you were confused by my prior point sorry, I didn't do a good job explaining myself. In the literal sense that chart is correct, Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq, but the real question is was Saddam working/affiliated/in contact/supporting/whatever with them. That is probably correct, to a point. I'm sure Hussein didn't want to destabilise his own leadership. Al Qaeda wants to establish a theocracy in the middle east. That is clearly not what Hussein wanted. Now that Hussein has been removed from power, Al Qaeda and every other wannabe islamic tyrant sees an opportunity in Iraq. An opportunity to wrest power. And an opportunity to embarr!@#$%^&* the US and the west.Of course!!! So, us removing Saddam did not CREATE any terrorism, the terrorists were ALREADY THERE. Because the consequences flowing from his removal could be worse than the consequences of leaving him there. Where as I do see this reasoning, if you use this reasoning (Which most of the world did for the last decade) you're detaching yourself from the reprocussions this decision has on the general populus of Iraq. Now that Hussein is gone, the world community in general NOW gives a -*BAD WORD*- about the general Iraqi, some even claiming their lives are WORSE now than before with Saddam in power.. Why is this? Might not have "created" it, but you sure as -*BAD WORD*- encouraged it. To believe otherwise is not only naive, it's [insert better word here]. Absolutly, I never claimed otherwise, it only makes sense. One of the most powerful tyrants in the middle east gone, of course various factions are going to try and sieze power, it only makes sense.
Aileron Posted September 28, 2004 Author Report Posted September 28, 2004 Being born in the US to two citizens would make me a citizen too wouldn't it? I forget how that works...<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually the rule is that you are a US citizen if you were born on US soil OR one of your parents were a US citizen at the time. This my overlap countries with similar rules, in which case the child will have duel or even trio citizenship. Look, the thing I REALLY don't like from the left is how you criticise the "going into Iraq caused terrorism" NOW. Prior to the invasion, the only criticism you could muster was the "Oil-war" arguement - which I have repeatedly proven is a crock of BS, to the point that all intelligent liberals gave up on it. This is nothing but Monday-morning quarterbacking. Sadistic arguement, but if Al-Queda attack our soldiers in Iraq, then they are too busy too attack our civilians at home. The problem is Iraq isn't as violent as the media says it is - Al Queda is clearly striking in Spain and Russia. Thus, either they grown in leadership, or the media is blowing the violence in Iraq out of proportion. And the thing is that we have captured or killed most of their leadership as well as destroyed any infrastructure they had, so their leadership has diminished and not grown.
MonteZuma Posted September 28, 2004 Report Posted September 28, 2004 Look, the thing I REALLY don't like from the left is how you criticise the "going into Iraq caused terrorism" NOW. Prior to the invasion, the only criticism you could muster was the "Oil-war" arguement - which I have repeatedly proven is a crock of BS, to the point that all intelligent liberals gave up on it. This is nothing but Monday-morning quarterbacking.Bull. Just to demonstrate the point, here is what, in 2002, the "Women Against Military Madness" group described as "eight reasons why we should not invade Iraq": 1. It cannot be justified. There has been no attack on the U.S. and Iraq has not been linked to 9/11. 2. The CIA confirmed that it has "no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the U.S. in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al-Qaida or related terrorist groups" (New York Times, Feb. 2, 2002). 3. Thousands of innocent civilians would be killed and it would cost tens of billions of our tax dollars. 4. It would require a long-term military occupation and would undermine international cooperation. 5. It could result in the destabilization of Iraq and the whole of the Middle East. 6. It would stir up more anti-American feeling, which could result in more terrorist attacks. 7. Use of the doctrine of preemption (attack them before they attack us) would set a very dangerous precedent. 8. Such an attack would be a breach of international law and would undermine the UN charter. LOL! WTF?! W A M M score a touch down with 8 out of 8 correct !@#$%^&*umptions about the impact of an Iraqi invasion. W A M M got it right and you and GWB got it wrong????? LOL Who needs Rumsfeld or Powell or Rice when the US has expert analysts like W A M M. Seriously though, every thinking person feared that Iraq would be destabilised and that terrorist attacks would increase as a result of the Iraqi invasion. Every thinking person was correct.
white_0men Posted September 28, 2004 Report Posted September 28, 2004 Wow, go W A M M. 8/8 isn't half bad.
Aileron Posted September 29, 2004 Author Report Posted September 29, 2004 if you happen to be liberal its 8/8. I can only agree to half of one of them. By the way, 5 is not a problem at all. A "stable" Middle East caused 9/11. In that cae of that, any "instability" is a good thing. And 6 is not exactly your arguement. It states that the would cause them to hate us. Yeah, no Middle Eastern hated the United States before the Iraq invasion. Look, spare this. You guys hate Bush. You hated him before he was even elected, and spent his entire term looking for something to criticise about him. When you didn't find !@#$%^&*, you made a big deal about Iraq. There is nothing that can be saide about Iraq that cannot be said about Bosnia or Kosovo. You don't care about Iraq...its just another political issue to you. Its just a means for you to convey your feelings about Bush while hiding the fact that your opinion of him is nothing but emotion. Iraq is nothing more than your political persona. You try to act like you are defending the rights of a helpless nation, just to hide the fact that you hate Bush and have no valid reason for doing so. [And trust me, you don't want to hear what I REALLY think your motivations are.]
Bacchus Posted September 29, 2004 Report Posted September 29, 2004 the "no valid reasons" always make me laugh. tks, you just made my day.
white_0men Posted September 29, 2004 Report Posted September 29, 2004 You don't care about Iraq...its just another political issue to you. Its just a means for you to convey your feelings about Bush while hiding the fact that your opinion of him is nothing but emotion. Iraq is nothing more than your political persona. You try to act like you are defending the rights of a helpless nation, just to hide the fact that you hate Bush and have no valid reason for doing so.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> And you do care about Iraq? How is "You hate bush therefore you don't care about Iraq" a valid reason? Iraq is somewhere I feel we shouldn't be. Go after the terrorists, rip their hearts out, kill the pieces of s!@#$%^&* that were responsible for what happened in New York. But, where's the valid reason for going into Iraq? Whether the country of Iraq is better off now than it was before is irrelevant. Who are we to say what's better or worse? Story Time: There is a family that lives down the street from me who blasts their salsa music into the early morning while I'm trying to sleep. My life would be better off without them. Does that mean that I can go drop a bomb on them? Absolutely not, but that's one of the reasons Bush used, and no one has said !@#$%^&* about it. Where is your validity now? --- Did you know that 42% of America still thinks that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11?
Dr.Worthless Posted September 29, 2004 Report Posted September 29, 2004 But, where's the valid reason for going into Iraq? Whether the country of Iraq is better off now than it was before is irrelevant. Who are we to say what's better or worse? Story Time: There is a family that lives down the street from me who blasts their salsa music into the early morning while I'm trying to sleep. My life would be better off without them. Does that mean that I can go drop a bomb on them? Absolutely not, but that's one of the reasons Bush used, and no one has said !@#$%^&* about it. Where is your validity now? First. You have to believe that a democracy in the middle east would help stabilize the region. If you don't believe that then obviously you dont agree with this whole war. I of course believe it. -*BAD WORD*-, Its for sure better than what WAS going on in the middle east, which we all know basically breed terrorism. Secondly. WOW Omen, way to show off your intelligence with that GEM of an example. Obviously the only reason we went into Iraq was because we didn't like how the country was ran. Good luck actually making an arguement that the United States and the World would be a better place with Saddam in power, you're going to have to do a -*BAD WORD*- of alot better job than correlating it with a Salsa loving family down the street. Discuss Saddam connections with terrorism (valid discussion). Discuss Saddam connection with Al-Qaeda (Notice the difference... valid discussion)Discuss if a democracy in the middle east will work better than oppression based governments (valid discussion) Discuss if the world and the United States is better off with a dictator in power in the middle east that owned a large portion of the words oil, that had the knowledge to build chemical weapons, that had the knowledge to build nuclear weapons, that was hostile towards it neighbors, that commited acts of genocide, that commited crimes against humanity, and you'll lose because thats rediculous and !@#$%^&*anine.
MonteZuma Posted September 29, 2004 Report Posted September 29, 2004 You guys hate Bush.I agree. You hated him before he was even electedTrue. I thought he was dangerous before he was elected. I was right. , and spent his entire term looking for something to criticise about him.Not really. I supported his stance on the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I didn't support the way he handled North Korea. I was open minded. I absolutely despised the way he lied to the world about Iraq. I don't know enough about Bosnia or Kosovo to comment. It didn't affect me or my country as much as the war in Iraq has. If someone starts a thread about Bosnia/Kosovo I might read up on it. You don't care about IraqI do. ...its just another political issue to you.Iraq is one issue in a world full of difficult and intractable problems. Its just a means for you to convey your feelings about BushI agree. It is a perfect example of his arrogance and incompetence. while hiding the fact that your opinion of him is nothing but emotion.My opinion of him is based on his words and his actions. Iraq is nothing more than your political persona.Heh. I'd argue that Iraq has become nothing more than Bush's politial persona. You try to act like you are defending the rights of a helpless nation, just to hide the fact that you hate Bush and have no valid reason for doing so.No. I am not trying to defend the rights of a helpless country at all. The rights of Iraqis were trampled on before and after the invasion. If anything, I believe that the rights of Iraqis are secondary. Global security and stability is more important to me than Iraqi rights and freedoms. But setting aside that, I think that the invasion of Iraq potentially makes life worse for Iraqis. Time will tell whether i am right or wrong on that. I hope I'm wrong. and trust me, you don't want to hear what I REALLY think your motivations are.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Trust me, I do.
Recommended Posts