tyrion Posted March 2, 2008 Author Report Posted March 2, 2008 agreed. But Saddam violated rules we set in place after OUR gulf war with them. They weren't just some misc. country out in the sand that we decided to show up and throw a tailgate party in. They were a harmless country that we had surrounded. Lets not forget who got him started in the first place: So because he violated the rules, 4000 Americans had to die?
tyrion Posted March 2, 2008 Author Report Posted March 2, 2008 pretty much. Your a f'ing idiot. It's time for a beer.
aardvark baguette Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 They were a harmless country that we had surrounded. Lets not forget who got him started in the first place: I didnt know that using chemical warfare was harmless.
aardvark baguette Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 Your a f'ing idiot. It's time for a beer. refer to my avatar's sig
tyrion Posted March 2, 2008 Author Report Posted March 2, 2008 i'm not sure that i would necessarily call Iraq "harmless." we didn't install Saddam (i do believe he had been in power since 1979, following the Baath party's assumption of power, following a coup in the 60's), we simply supplied him with the necessary military and fiscal assistance he required to wage his war against Iran. this military and fiscal assistance, unfortunately, carried over into the 90's. I'm aware of that. refer to my avatar's sig Until now, I didn't realize you meant it.
ojnihs Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 I see no difference between Bush and Al Qadea. They're pretty much doing the same thing to each other: "if you don't believe in what we do, then we'll kill you." Bush and Al Qadea are both idealists. Bush goes over there sprouting his shit on democracy and uses his christian faith to back up his decisions. Al Qadea uses their faith and hatred of America.
aardvark baguette Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 I see no difference between Bush and Al Qadea. They're pretty much doing the same thing to each other: "if you don't believe in what we do, then we'll kill you." Bush and Al Qadea are both idealists. Bush goes over there sprouting his shit on democracy and uses his christian faith to back up his decisions. Al Qadea uses their faith and hatred of America. I've been telling people for a while now that we are probably on the cusp of a new holy war.
tyrion Posted March 2, 2008 Author Report Posted March 2, 2008 I see no difference between Bush and Al Qadea. They're pretty much doing the same thing to each other: "if you don't believe in what we do, then we'll kill you." Bush and Al Qadea are both idealists. Bush goes over there sprouting his shit on democracy and uses his christian faith to back up his decisions. Al Qadea uses their faith and hatred of America. And my respect for you has gone up a few notches. by carried over, i mean that he had sufficient means to cary out the invasion of Kuwait and his genocide against the Kurds, not that we (the US) continued to supply him into the 90's. I'm well aware of the history. This isn't the first time I've had this discussion.
aardvark baguette Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 my respect for you has dropped several notches. not only is that factually incorrect, it's rhetorically fallacious. the goals of the Wahabists and the Bush administration brook few comparisons. Oh come on, no one has yet mentioned "war for oil" And its been a full 15 minutes! And my respect for you has gone up a few notches. Hell, you want me to make a few sweeping generalizations?
tyrion Posted March 2, 2008 Author Report Posted March 2, 2008 Hell, you want me to make a few sweeping generalizations? Nope, you've said quite enough.
aardvark baguette Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 Nope, you've said quite enough. Ah good old dependable liberal fascism
ojnihs Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 my respect for you has dropped several notches. not only is that factually incorrect, it's rhetorically fallacious. fine by me, but i still stand by what i said. bush tries to make us believe that he's fighting the "good fight," when in reality he's doing to them exactly what they are doing to us. he spouts idealist bullshit about how the world should be run the way we (Americans) run it and how their ways are wrong. members of al qaeda spout shit about how our way of doing things isn't right and that it should the way they do it. same bullshit comes out of both camps. bush uses christianity and al qaeda uses islamic ideals to support whatever the fuck they're doing. like aardvark said, this is a new holy war.
ojnihs Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 hey, Churchill and Hitler were the same because both attempted to spread the influence of their respective countries through political and military means. i wouldn't go this far. hitler was clearly nuts and killed millions of innocent jews on the basis of their religion alone. genocide is a completely different issue. by the way, how did this whole thing start? i just kinda jumped in for shits and giggles.
tyrion Posted March 2, 2008 Author Report Posted March 2, 2008 Ah good old dependable liberal fascism Why, because I am tired of reading your nonsense? If it's liberal fascism to believe your support for Bush and this war is fucking stupid, then guilty as charged.
aardvark baguette Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 he's doing to them exactly what they are doing to us. he spouts idealist bullshit about how the world should be run the way we (Americans) run it and how their ways are wrong. members of al qaeda spout shit about how our way of doing things isn't right and that it should the way they do it and stone their women fixed The difference, how ever small, is that we didnt attack unprovoked or saw their heads off on tv Yes, we do kill in war. That is a little eventuality of war, I'm afraid.
ojnihs Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 fixed The difference, how ever small, is that we didnt attack unprovoked or saw their heads off on tv Yes, we do kill in war. That is a little eventuality of war, I'm afraid. man that stoning shit was fucking disturbing
Chekhonte Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 fixed The difference, how ever small, is that we didnt attack unprovoked or saw their heads off on tv Yes, we do kill in war. That is a little eventuality of war, I'm afraid. why do you support this war?
aardvark baguette Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 Why, because I am tired of reading your nonsense? If it's liberal fascism to believe your support for Bush and this war is fucking stupid, then guilty as charged. No, the idea that I shouldn't be allowed to voice my opinions further, silly This really takes me back to college, where all the 'open minded' democratic teachers were so kind and open to debate, until you had a different opinion, and they flunked your essay
tyrion Posted March 2, 2008 Author Report Posted March 2, 2008 fixed The difference, how ever small, is that we didnt attack unprovoked or saw their heads off on tv We didn't attack unprovoked? And to think, I thought that was exactly what we did do. Like they say, you learn something new everyday.
aardvark baguette Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 why do you support this war? Because I believe its the right thing to do, based on prior occurrences.
tyrion Posted March 2, 2008 Author Report Posted March 2, 2008 No, the idea that I shouldn't be allowed to voice my opinions further, silly This really takes me back to college, where all the 'open minded' democratic teachers were so kind and open to debate, until you had a different opinion, and they flunked your essay The beauty of this country, at least for the moment, is you are free to voice your opinions no matter how much I may disagree with them. You've said enough for me but I never said you couldn't continue. Because I believe its the right thing to do, based on prior occurrences. Okay, well now I understand. What was I thinking.
ojnihs Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 by the by, i consider myself to be a libertarian democrat
ojnihs Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 hitler was in no way nuts. he was an astute politician. it simply happened that he was immoral, and acquired the power to back his immorality. he attacks against the Jews had very little, if anything, to do with religion. at first it was a way of uniting the German people against a single supposed enemy, and later it was a extension of Hitler's disgust at any group that was not prototypically teutonic, whatever that means. the fact that they were non Christian (despite the claims of many, Hitler was an ascriber to Protestantism and Christian mysticism) had very little to do with why they were singled out. instead, Hitler viewed them (largely) as having undermined the manifest destiny of the Teutons, as Jewish groups before and during World War I refused to lend to the German state during Wilhelm II's reign. his hatred obviously expanded enormously during his Chancellorship, but religion still had little to do with it, other than as a way of aggravating the mob. i stand corrected. great reply reks.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now