Originally posted by no1marauderHey, If sticking up for a mad, completely insane dictator who started two wars and murdered countless of his own people is your style, don't let me pull yer skirt down from around yer ears while you engage in insipid lovemaking. Enjoy your relationship. You deserve each other. You and Saddam.
You're a very sick man. If you watched the major news networks coverage of the invasion of Iraq they were falling over each other to support the administration and the war. They kept repeating nonsense about Iraqi troops getting ready to use chemical weapons, of mass uprising against Saddam, and other pretend stories that got from the US milita ...[text shortened]... ing on; but then you wouldn't sound like the deranged nutjob we've come to know and not stand.
I'll just defend our policy. Try to destroy as much evil as you can with what you have. That's the policy of simpletons. But simpletons who recognize that Saddam only deserves the love of fools. Like you.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYour hero Reagan restored full diplomatic relations with Iraq and Saddam right after the 1984 elections and Donny Rumsfeld was over there twice before that shaking his hand and giving him big hugs. Who supported Saddam? Not me; your buds.
Hey, If sticking up for a mad, completely insane dictator who started two wars and murdered countless of his own people is your style, don't let me pull yer skirt down from around yer ears while you engage in insipid lovemaking. Enjoy your relationship. You deserve each other. You and Saddam.
I'll just defend our policy. Try to destroy as much evil ...[text shortened]... simpletons. But simpletons who recognize that Saddam only deserves the love of fools. Like you.
I have no trouble at all to say where I stand. Its you who don't seem to be able to read your own language. In no way I defended a criminal like Shaddam. If you look further then your reading glasses, you would notice I am from Holland ... the same country that has troops in Iraq right now. The same country that was in Bosnia in 1994 ( for which i volunteered ) the same country that supported the US in 1999 military in Kosovo.... you just don't seem to understand that I support the US military but not a sofa clown talking about WE and bragging about another man's or woman's battles and sacrifizes.
Originally posted by no1marauderDid the word "time" and "past" and "present" ever occur to you?
Your hero Reagan restored full diplomatic relations with Iraq and Saddam right after the 1984 elections and Donny Rumsfeld was over there twice before that shaking his hand and giving him big hugs. Who supported Saddam? Not me; your buds.
Big mistake. Obviously. But... NOW PAY ATTENTION! Like if you can, man, ya know. "TIME HAPPENS. THINGS CHANGE. ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR ERRORS. MOVE ON. CONFRONT OBVIOUS EVIL. DO YOUR BEST".
That's about the easiest thing in the world to do. For an adult. We recognize our mistakes. Then try to amend them. Why do you think we are taking out this jerk? Because of your point. Exactly. Fool my once... your ass is dead. Piss on fooling me twice.
Time happens. Ain't it a bitch? Too bad for you commies! Hell, you could still be killing babies and women in your fight for silliness were it not for that "TIME" thing.
Originally posted by NicolaiSSo you support the invasion of Iraq?
I have no trouble at all to say where I stand. Its you who don't seem to be able to read your own language. In no way I defended a criminal like Shaddam. If you look further then your reading glasses, you would notice I am from Holland ... the same country that has troops in Iraq right now. The same country that was in Bosnia in 1994 ( for which i voluntee ...[text shortened]... ofa clown talking about WE and bragging about another man's or woman's battles and sacrifizes.
Ok. Sorry. And you are right. I'm just an old worn out fool like you. No problem.
2 edits
Originally posted by NicolaiSNo problem here either. Trust me. This isn't near the mess that invading Europe was against Nazi submarines in 1943-44. We did ok there.
No problem at all here. I do support the removal of Hussein. Its only my "historical" knowledge that doubts if the US administration made a wise decision to stick itsself in that hornets nest. A nest where they wont easily can pull out from again.
I guess it goes to the "value" judgement. "France" was a good "invasion and liberation" but Iraq isn't? I always wonder why?
I see very little difference between Hitler and Saddam. Do you?
So why is helping to liberate europe a good thing? Or was it? Hell, we learned later that most french were quite pissed about it all. They adopted National Socialism with a vengence.
I wonder sometimes if that isn't the reason for the america bashers hatred. I really think they hate us for helping them when they didn't want the help. Just as the people of Iraq today. They are extremely glad to be rid of Saddam, but hate us for doing it. Like it could happen without causation? Immaculate immancipation.
You still ducked the question. Who is evil? US marines or the terrorists?
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou're such a joke. The only thing different about Saddam in 2004 than 1984 was he made the bad mistake of invading Kuwait in 1991. Those are the kind of Arabs the rich boys who run the show here want to do bizness with; faded old aristocrats who send their sons to Oxford and Harvard so they can become "Westernized" junior pardners of the Big Boys over here. So then, in the blink of an eye, he became as bad as Hitler even though your right wing pals had been up his arse right before!! But Bush, Sr. was at least not so stupid that he didn't occupy Iraq; he says in his presidental papers that would be a disaster. But his moron son lacks any sense of what goes on in the real world; he believed the Neocons and Chlabi who said all them Iraqis would be sticking daisies in our rifles!!
Did the word "time" and "past" and "present" ever occur to you?
Big mistake. Obviously. But... NOW PAY ATTENTION! Like if you can, man, ya know. "TIME HAPPENS. THINGS CHANGE. ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR ERRORS. MOVE ON. CONFRONT OBVIOUS ...[text shortened]... n in your fight for silliness were it not for that "TIME" thing.
If you want to "Confront Obvious Evil", confront the SOB's rich boys who think that it's great to send patriotic American working class kids to die and kill thousands of miles away to help them dominate the entire globe, so long as their sons and daughters get to be junior level executives and never deal with such "unpleasantness". And I know you rightwing nuts hate to be reminded that the Rumsfelds of the world now harp about the terrible, evil man Saddam was but when he was doing these things they supported him!! Yeah, you should read 1984; maybe the conservatives can get a Ministry of truth going and you can get Winston Smith's job of erasing history that doesn't comport with present policy! So don't give me good and evil - evil is an unnecessary, pointless and doomed to failure war with ten of thousands dead and plenty more to come because of idiots who "think" like you.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou still ducked the question. Who is evil? US marines or the terrorists?
No problem here either. Trust me. This isn't near the mess that invading Europe was against Nazi submarines in 1943-44. We did ok there.
I guess it goes to the "value" judgement. "France" was a good "invasion and liberation" ...[text shortened]... ll ducked the question. Who is evil? US marines or the terrorists?
Didn't intend to duck this question. Terrorists need to be hunted down and brought to court ... if possible.
I guess it goes to the "value" judgement. "France" was a good "invasion and liberation" but Iraq isn't? I always wonder why?
The differance is that although some French didn't like to be liberated by the US, Canada, Britain and the Poles most of them did. The French didn't start a guerilla war against the liberator as the Iraqies are doing, because[i/] they don't [i]feel liberated but see their country occupied after the wanted removal of Shaddam. Iraq is not occupied first by a foreign nation like Germany occupied France. There is a difference.
I see very little difference between Hitler and Saddam. Do you?
I see an enormous difference between Hitler and Saddam, their personalities do have similarities but its, in my opinion, impossible to compare these totally different systems in politics and religion. Comparing two historic events is always dangerous and should be avoided. The danger might be that the evil Hitler was becomes bagatelle and thats something that must never happen.
Saddam is evil enough in its own perverted way and should be taken care off in its own special way too.
So why is helping to liberate europe a good thing? Or was it? Hell, we learned later that most french were quite pissed about it all. They adopted National Socialism with a vengence.
Some French adopted Nazi policies as did every other country in Europe and large groups of people in the US for that matter. This is a generalization you should avoid as it blurs your own insights in events in the past and present.
Helping to liberate Europe was a good thing even if only measured by what teh US had to gain from it. For example: The US didn't want to see the Sowjets take over the entire continent and lose all their invested money (loans) to the numerous European countries that were allied to the US. There are many more, but this was just an example.
Originally posted by NicolaiSDidn't intend to duck this question. Terrorists need to be hunted down and brought to court ... if possible.
[b]You still ducked the question. Who is evil? US marines or the terrorists?
Didn't intend to duck this question. Terrorists need to be hunted down and brought to court ... if possible.
I guess it goes to the "value" judgement. "France" was a good "invasion and liberation" but Iraq isn't? I always wonder why?
The differance is th ...[text shortened]... uropean countries that were allied to the US. There are many more, but this was just an example.[/b]
We will just have to agree that we don't agree here. "Law" requires the recognition on the part of both parties that 'law' has weight. Terrorists are nothing to do with law. They do recognize death and killing. So kill them.
The differance is that although some French didn't like to be liberated by the US, Canada, Britain and the Poles most of them did. The French didn't start a guerilla war against the liberator as the Iraqies are doing, because[i/] they don't feel liberated but see their country occupied after the wanted removal of Shaddam. Iraq is not occupied first by a foreign nation like Germany occupied France. There is a difference.
The lack of logic here kind of makes my head hurt. Do you have any doubt that had the french started killing innocent people with car bombs that we would not have killed them? As we are doing to the killers of babies in iraq? If you think this you lack a basic understanding of what we were trying to do then... and are trying to do now. If it is true that the Sunni's didn't hijack the government of the majority of Iraq... maybe you have a point. I submit that the communist Baathist's imposed their will by terror. Just as Hitler did. Show me where they had elections with opposition parties. That will win your argument for you.
I see an enormous difference between Hitler and Saddam, their personalities do have similarities but its, in my opinion, impossible to compare these totally different systems in politics and religion. Comparing two historic events is always dangerous and should be avoided. The danger might be that the evil Hitler was becomes bagatelle and thats something that must never happen.
I find this intensely interesting and disturbing. Can you tell me which trait of Hitler is lacking in Saddam? The fact that the three wars that Saddam started were not "in europe" and thus "unimportant"? That the people who died in Saddams wars were not as important as "europeans" are?
Some French adopted Nazi policies as did every other country in Europe and large groups of people in the US for that matter. This is a generalization you should avoid as it blurs your own insights in events in the past and present.
Helping to liberate Europe was a good thing even if only measured by what teh US had to gain from it. For example: The US didn't want to see the Sowjets take over the entire continent and lose all their invested money (loans) to the numerous European countries that were allied to the US. There are many more, but this was just an example.
Well, I'm guilty of not being politically correct. When I see a terror sympathizor I usually call them on it. But. You are absolutely right about generalizations. I am just trying to understand why we Americans are villified with nothing BUT generalizations. Saddam was evil and needed to go... BUT he should have been allowed to keep killing until he died of old age and left his regime to his murderous spawn? Makes no sense to me. He wasn't going anywhere. Was he?
Speaking of the "propaganda war"... good news. "Buried In The Sand" passed "Fahrenhype 911" today as the number one seller on Amazon.com. "Farenhype 911" is very excellent rebuttal to the sniverling little coward commie "Mikey Moore Or Less", but "Buried In The Sand" lets you who support Saddam have a close look at his regime. 90 uninterupted minutes of beheadings, torture, amputations and outright sadistic murder. A must have for every "liberal" library.
Only a true liberal will consider watching this. It might be an eye opener for those of you who support terror by default.
A review that I can actually agree with is at:
http://www.dvdmoviecentral.com/ReviewsText/buried_in_the_sand.htm
With the qualifier that if you really want to support the anti-war side of this argument... you need to see this.