| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
The instant you read the header for this thread, the picture was painted in your head. An Overweight, unsufisticated, arrogant trigger happy gun slinger. No. I am proud of my country. I am proud that this is the youngest nation on earth with the oldest government. I am proud that we are a superpower, but remorse that we are the only one. I take pride in our Constitution, and the bill of rights meant to reign in the government. I am proud that we have a president whom, in the face of so much opposition, continues to do what he thinks is right. And continues to welcome opposition as a sign that free speach is alive and well. I am disgraced that past presidents are on foreign soil critizing the current administration. I realize that other countries are protecting their interests and security. So are we. |
|
"I am disgraced that past presidents are on foreign soil critizing the current administration. " This goes back to that other set of posts about how other leaders take heat all the time but the President gets all the softball questions and set up press conferences... Who gives a shit. Fuck respect, fuck withholding your opinion, fuck silent disagreement for the president of any country. He's the servant, you are his boss, slap that fucker around. Him looking like an idiot doesnt hurt the country if the general public and the people who would know (like people who currently or formerly worked in politics), are calling him on it. It hurts the country when the leader is an idiot and the people know it but are ignoring it because its taboo to question the fearless leader. It hurts the country when you allow the leader to sit in a hidey hole not answering your questions. THIS blind faith, this complacency and unwarranted trust in their leaders is where Americans get the reputation for being unsufisitcated (sic) and wilfully ignorant. It makes them look like sheep. Now you can sit still and be a good little boy, or you can fix it, for not only the good of the world, but for your own self interest. And this isnt even about pro-war or anti-war, its about politicians being held accountable for their own words and actions. In Canada or Europe or Australia in this situation the people would have shouted down Fleischer by now and demanded under force that the questions be clearly answered, in detail about how things like phony evidence happen, demand things like the anthrax stuff, Enron and 9/11 be fully investigated and not fall by the wayside. Things like the mispronounciation of 'nuclear' and calling them 'pakis' would have ruined careers for politicians in other countries... only in America does it seem that people who are so out of touch, so unaware of what is going on, so unqualified, can hold such high positions of power. Are you proud that the leader of the United States is a man who never earned anything in his entire life? Not even his own acceptance into college? That is not America. America was about being rewarded for hard work. George Bush is anti-American. Everything about him runs contrary to the promise and spirit that the United States was built upon. And I don't even hate Bush in particular. He's just one in a long line of bad politicians that do not represent the people, which includes you too, trace. If you really mean what you said in your post, you should be the one who has the problem with him. George Bush is an opponent, whether he means to be or not, of the constitution, the bill of rights, your security, democracy, and free speech. I don't think you even really give a shit about your own freedoms so long as whoever is the leader of the country agrees with you on key issues. You want to be on the winning team. its in your personality. The only thing George Bush is protecting is your particular job by throwing invisible government money around. We need to encourage cloning so the founding fathers can come back and kick all these treasonous pussies asses. When people dont question the door is opened for tyranny, propaganda & lies. Your questions are not being asked enough, and are certainly not being answered. Door's ajar. I know I'm being harsh, but you are so very frustrating when you mistake obedience for allegiance; zeal for righteousness. Yes, this McDonalds gravy is awful. Thin and soupy, its falling off of my fries. |
ah.... |
The instant you read the header for this thread, the picture was painted in your head. An Overweight, unsufisticated, arrogant trigger happy gun slinger. " No, that's not the picture that was in my head. I've met thousands of Americans that don't fit that description. Sorry. What is your point? |
|
Is Hussein excempt? His actions are invasion, mass murder of his own people, torture, breaking cease fire agreements, and kidnapping. |
Then why did you post it to a public forum? The point was for anyone who read it, which is why you come off as an idiot. "The instant you read the header for this thread, the picture was painted in your head." See, that's the whole problem. You have no idea what comes up in my head. You just think you do. And when someone says, "I don't think that," you say, "I wasn't talking to you." Of course you're not talking to them. You're talking to yourself. |
everyone else, you're an asshole. i'm the american. |
His actions are invasion, mass murder of his own people, torture, breaking cease fire agreements, and kidnapping. " Shifty... Noone here, NOONE is against holding Saddam accountable for his actions. The debate is about the method. The way of war is shortsighted and is going to cause more problems. Other methods (notice that was plural and did not just say "inspections") must be explored, and that requires the US' full cooperation in finding that way... that is of course if the US means what it says about war being the last option. |
so, what is the point? i'm sure i'm up to the challenge of comprehending it. i'm genuinely curious as to what you tried to say up top. |
i'm the american." No, I'm Spartacus! |
PEACENIK By Bill Davidson PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq? WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions. PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq. WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over New York. PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons. WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue. PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons. WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorist networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to. PN: But couldn’t virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the Eighties ourselves, didn't we? WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early Eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer. PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer? WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait. PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait? WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama Bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two. PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him? WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act. PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel? WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq. PN: He did? WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaida poison factory in Iraq. PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition? WM: And a British intelligence report... PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper? WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs... PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings? WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors... PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix? WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security. PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point. PN: So what is the point? WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because Resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the Security Council will become an irrelevant debating society. PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council? WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us. PN: And what if it does rule against us? WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq. PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that? WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters. PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars. WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing. PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war. WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions. PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important? WM: Yes. PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C... WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line. PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic? WM: I never said that. PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq? WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies. PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons. WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them. PN: You know this? How? WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for. PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean? WM: Precisely. PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years. WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded. PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade? WM: Exactly. PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire. WM: That's a diplomatic issue. PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy? WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions. PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions. WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security. PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security? WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won. PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live? WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq. PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq? WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences. PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen? WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations. PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations? WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council. PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council? WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council. PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council? WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto. PN: In which case? WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto. PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all? WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council. PN: That makes no sense. WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that. PN: Here... have a pretzel, instead. |
|
trace i have no idea what your intent of this thread is but i would like to express my dismay that McD's has gravy. Im eating lentil soup, drinking tecate, listening the Kings game on e radio. |
1. Saddam has been given almost four extra months to prepare his defenses, booby traps, and plans for revenge. 2. U.S. and British troops have spent four extra months in tents in the desert. I don’t know about you, but five months of breathing sand would not do wonders for my morale. 3. The U.S. now goes into the war without even a figleaf of UN support. In November, we could have said that we were going to war on the authority of Security Council Resolution 1441 – or because Iraq had violated the terms of its 1991 armistice. Now, we’re going to war despite being told “no” by the UN. 4. The antiwar demonstraters of Europe have used the time to organize and mobilize – creating political problems for many American friends and offering radical Islamist forces inside Europe (for the first time) access to something close to mainstream politics. |
god damn. do you have any idea what a fucking cock you sound like you imperialist bastard. this war is unjust, illegal, immoral and unnecessary. the demonstrations in europe AND america, and asia AND south america and everywhere else are a result of the world's outrage and the rush to war. " creating political problems for many American friends " yeah, those damn protestors expressing their liberty.....why do they always have to get in the way. " offering radical Islamist forces inside Europe (for the first time) access to something close to mainstream politics." what? do you even understand what you are saying? i bet you don't. im truly betting you have really no idea of the implications that you create with this absurd post. |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/03/15/baggage.inspection.ap/index.html |
|
i bet im a better gun slinger than you tough guy. im actually really damn good with a gun. all the times i've gone to a range or skeet shooting... and of course Lethal Enforcer 2 at the bowling alley. |
|
This is from my Aunt. My uncle was in Vietnam. Do you understand that there is nothing anyone can do to stop this? Do you understand that the last 4 months have not helped the ones who will be out there risking their lives? Or do you not give a shit at all? |
the only personal responsilble for risking the lives needlessly of our troops is bush. stop playing the emotional card with the veteran shit because there are plenty of vets who dont support this shit. |
"support our troops, bring them home" that angle aint gonna work this time spunk. not since the vietnam war have people resented our troops. they are doing their jobs. its the motherfuckers who needlessly put them in harms way. |
I know he still has them, I know he is hiding them, I am not sure of the threat the weapons really are to us. i do not question the need for him to get out of iraq. I do not question the fact that he has trained terrorists, because I KNOW he has. He has trained terrorist on hijacking a 737 using only small knives or bare hands. There is absolutely no question about that. Remember when the president was given authorization on September 14, 2001 to fight terrorists and nations that support them with any means necessary? Don't kid yourself, he HAS trained terrorists. He IS paying terrorists for blowing themselves up in public places. He IS supporting terrorism. This is asbolutely another step in the war on terrorism. You have bought the anti-bush line hook line and sinker. The phrases they have used now they have used since 1933. It's manufactured. Iraq poses a DIRECT THREAT to the security of the United States. He is A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. |
I hope it was sincere, but I have a feeling it was a cute play on words. |
Stanley, my head is swimming. |
|
I may be cynical about it, I admit that |
as for saddam, i'll say it again for the record: kill that monster and everyone like him. now. but take care of the regular joes afterward. otherwise, forget it. anything less is just more terrorism. |
poutine blows. |
I'm quite scared. KFC here sells potato and gravy. In England peas and gravy. Weird |
You know, like Osama Bin Laden. |
Just an observation. |
|
Here's some more red-blooded Americans we can be proud of. |
but hey, what do i know. |