The liberal

[Mechagodzilla]

Did you take this seriously mecha? Come on now, one can tell that it was meant to be more of a joke than serious commentary.

I know it's a joke, but it's like I made a joke:

Q: What do you have to do to be George Bush?
A: Win the Stanley Cup!

Any comedy in that biting political satire would be negated by the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever. Bush has nothing to do with hockey, so it just left me more puzzled than anything.

The joke in question is also more of a joke, but the elements of commentary are still there, with a tone I'd call almost accusatory.
I would have just hoped for a bit more of a factual basis, I guess.

 

[Death.Trap]

I wish I could have been there!

Wasn't there only 300 protestors? And I believe this was the first time in US history that a anti-war protest group was given it's own stand.

 

[Korgoth]

It said terrorist, not Al Qaeda. Reread the question.


Can countries like Poland donate as much as us? No, they dont have the financial resources. They pitch it what they can.


How do the populations of France and Germany hold a dislike for the West? They are the West.


Why is it the US's job to feed the world? It isnt. Why should we feed millions of people who celebrate Americans dying? We shouldnt.

Why is it the US's job to feed the world? It isnt. Why should we feed millions of people who celebrate Americans dying? We shouldnt.

And remind me how rich in oil Kosovo is.



Am I dreaming?

Awww, I'm glad you felt the need to try and discredit, and disprove my opinion. Thats so sweet of you seinfeld.

You put many words in my mouth there, but I'll try and clarify for you.

Can countries like Poland donate as much as us? No, they dont have the financial resources. They pitch it what they can.

Obviously not. But I don't think you can call a country that merely agreed to back the war a coalition partner sharing in the risks.(not directed neccassarily at poland) But if a country sends no troops, and no financial aide, they can't really be called a member now can they? They've done nothing.

Why is it the US's job to feed the world? It isnt. Why should we feed millions of people who celebrate Americans dying? We shouldnt.

Why is it the US's job to feed the world? It isnt. Why should we feed millions of people who celebrate Americans dying? We shouldnt.

I never said it was our job to feed the world. But what makes it our job to remove dictators from power, over throw governments and spread democracy? Wouldn't it be easier to spend a small percentage of that money on food aide, then the people who are starving wouldn't have a reason to cheer at americans dying.


I never said anything about kosovo, but nice of you to bring it up.
(and btw, when I said the "west" I obviously meant the U.S. sorry.) Here you go, here is the west

http://www.thetruthishere.com/western-hemisphere-x.jpg

 

[seinfeldrules]

That is a great question and it is the question the world community was about to solve before Bush got inpatient.

Really? After 11 years, do you think they were finally making progress? News to me.

So you don't think Bush saying f-ck the world and going in to Iraq alone (after the world started to support as after 9/11) hurt our image around the world?

Did it hurt our image? Sure. Did it cause a massive uprising of anti-Americanism overnight? No.

I do have a problem with being lied to.

Again, I see this as a massive problem the CIA needs to fix. They not only fed Bush false intel, but also Bill Clinton and other Dems.

I do have a problem with sending American troops to die for bullshit causes.

I dont think many soldiers share this point of view, but thats all hearsay.

and my fear of Bush's foreign policy has grown when we're apparently going to pick a fight with Iran and Syria.

I'm hoping NK takes more precedent over them. NK scares the living shit outa me. Kim Jong Il is certifiably insane, while in control of nuclear weapons. The long term threat of NK scares me even more than Kim Jong. They have been salivating over SK for the last 50 years. It wouldnt suprise me at all if a situation soon erupts in which the US soldiers are thrown out of SK.

I do have a problem with needless civilian casualties.

I dont think many American soldiers kill civilians on purpose. It is my belief that the army attempts to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible. Do you think that reports of massive civilian casualties pleases them? No, they have every reason to avoid killing innocents. Their careers are on the line.

I do have a problem with torture which, goes hand in hand with hypocrisy when put in the Iraq context.

Who doesnt? Did you read the news that a soldier was just sent to prison for 10 years for his actions in Abu Gharib? We fix our problems.

 

[Bodacious]

I wish I could have been there!

I bet you don't support these pictures though:

Disrespecting the flag:

More disrespecting the flag:

Disrespecting the troops:

 

[bliink]

I think the more you apply mass-labels to a specific group (in this case, liberals), then the more inaccurate you become, the more it dulls peoples minds, and the more biased and disjointed you become from the truth.
It may be easy to group your enemies all together into a simple target, but life, let alone politics was never that simple, and never will be.
Polarizing the people has only a negative outcome.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

But what about the fact that specific groups share common traits? Then applying mass labels is accurate...

It doesn't dull the mind. Categorizing is a scientific principle. We do it with vegitable and mineral. So if it's huggin a tree, kissing a dolphin, or weeping for a mass murdering terrorist, it's a liberal.

 

[qckbeam]

I bet you don't support these pictures though:

Disrespecting the flag

...It's a flag...

People can do whatever they want with it. Doesn't bother me.

So if it's huggin a tree, kissing a dolphin, or weeping for a mass murdering terrorist, it's a liberal.

Bravo Shellback. Every post you make shows how narrow your your world view really is.

 

[bliink]

But what about the fact that specific groups share common traits? Then applying mass labels is accurate...

It doesn't dull the mind. Categorizing is a scientific principle. We do it with vegitable and mineral. So if it's huggin a tree, kissing a dolphin, or weeping for a mass murdering terrorist, it's a liberal.

There are hundreds of thousands of liberals (likewise terrorists). They dont all subscribe to the list posted by a long shot.
I can't think of a single group of that size that any list of mass labels would apply to.

 

[seinfeldrules]

...It's a flag...

Technically, you are correct. I would call it more of a symbol.

 

[Absinthe]

I bet you don't support these pictures though:

Disrespecting the flag:

More disrespecting the flag:

Those images don't phase me at all. It's a flag and they can feel free to burn it. That's political freedom.

Disrespecting the troops:

[/quote]

I don't quite see how that's disrespecting the troops.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

It doesn't dull the mind. Categorizing is a scientific principle. We do it with vegitable and mineral. So if it's huggin a tree, kissing a dolphin, or weeping for a mass murdering terrorist, it's a liberal.

So would you be the vegetable or the mineral?
Because your post isn't showing much scope beond those particular categories.
It just comes across as ignorant. Accusing other people of being terrorist sympathisers just because they dislike your war.

If, on the other hand, this is another of these comments that doesn't need to be funny or intelligent to classify as a joke, it's in really bad taste.
Why are you saying these sort of hateful things about people you (obviously) don't know in real life?
No one's laughing.

 

[qckbeam]

Technically, you are correct. I would call it more of a symbol.

That's true (I'm personally not one for symbolism, that's just me). It is a symbol to many. So I'd say the people in those pictures have come to hate what the flag now stands for. If they want to burn it in order to display their position then by all means go right ahead. It isn't disrespecting anyone, and I honestly can't find one thing wrong with doing it.

 

[OCybrManO]

They can burn a flag symbolizing what they hate as long as you can make slanderous generalizations about a group of millions of people that think a little differently. They can burn a flag as long as the the anti-"hippy" rage burns inside you. Frankly, I would rather see a foreign person burn a flag because our government is interfering with their way of life without them having a say in what we decide to do than having our country being torn apart from the inside by rabid hatred over relatively minor differences in the order in which we place our values. Why could England not tax us without our permission (one of the reasons we revolted)... but we can completely destroy and replace the governments of random "bad" countries with our own system on a whim? I guess the times have changed... and it's OK now.

How do the populations of France and Germany hold a dislike for the West? They are the West.

Now that's just a retarded statement in one of three ways (depending on how you meant it):
1) If you meant the western hemisphere... then, no, neither of them reside mostly in the western hemisphere (only a relatively small chunk of France crosses the Prime Meridian). Here is an illustration to help you visualize this.
2) If you meant France and Germany are west of France and Germany (meaning the term "west" was used in the relative meaning and using the location mentioned in context as the origin)... how, exactly, could something be west of itself?
3) If you were, for some strange reason, using another unnamed point as your origin (not the PM or France and Germany) that's a completely illogical conclusion, given the context of the orignal usage.

Also, regarding early USA history (I'd rather not dig up an old thread to post this bit of info so I'll tack it on to this post as if it were related to the current topic)... I think it should be noted that many of the leaders of the American Revolution and the consequent founding of the USA were Deists... not Christians. They also understood (and were vocal about) the reasoning for keeping religion and government separated. They just fought for freedom from a government that did the opposite of that. They warned against religious government. They warned against the polarized hatred generated by a party system (keeping the public from focusing on the real issues, keeping challengers from having any chance whatsoever, etc). They warned against the dangers of foreign entanglements (which we have since proven to be plenty to piss people off enough to kill us). They said a lot of stuff that turned out to be true... even though they said all men are created equal while owning slaves. They're an interesting bunch.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Now that's just a retarded statement in one of three ways (depending on how you meant it):
1) If you meant the western hemisphere... then, no, neither of them reside mostly in the western hemisphere (only a relatively small chunk of France crosses the Prime Meridian). Here is an illustration to help you visualize this.
2) If you meant France and Germany are west of France and Germany (meaning the term "west" was used in the relative meaning and using the location mentioned in context as the origin)... how, exactly, could something be west of itself?
3) If you were, for some strange reason, using another unnamed point as your origin (not the PM or France and Germany) that's a completely illogical conclusion, given the context of the orignal usage.

Isn't America + Europe grouped into the "West", while Russia + Asia are the "East". I believe the generalization probably stemmed from the Cold War days, I'm suprised you have never heard it.

 

[Scoobnfl]

How about shame on the United States for sitting by idly back in the day and even having the gall to do business with him. :shock:

Germany is home to the most major suppliers listed in Iraq's 1998 U.N. declaration. The Netherlands and Switzerland each are home to three companies on the list. France, Austria and the United States each are home to two.


from here

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/17/iraq.chemical.suit/


turning a blind eye to your own countries deeds?

 

[Kangy]

Wait? Absinthe is suddenly not an American in Switzerland, but simply a Swiss citizen now? Fantastic.

 

[Absinthe]

Germany is home to the most major suppliers listed in Iraq's 1998 U.N. declaration. The Netherlands and Switzerland each are home to three companies on the list. France, Austria and the United States each are home to two.


from here

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/17/iraq.chemical.suit/


turning a blind eye to your own countries deeds?

If I was turning a blind eye to my own country, I wouldn't be accusing the US of these things.

You seem to think that I believe the US is the only one responsible for these things. I don't. The only reason I actually argue with you people is because you apparently refuse to accept that America is capable of being underhanded.

 

[Scoobnfl]

If I was turning a blind eye to my own country, I wouldn't be accusing the US of these things.

You seem to think that I believe the US is the only one responsible for these things. I don't. The only reason I actually argue with you people is because you apparently refuse to accept that America is capable of being underhanded.

lol...... no I understand that America is capable of being underhanded, I just understand that being underhanded is sometimes necessary, especially when you're dealing with complex matters and every single party involved is being underhanded......... to act otherwise is noble and all that feel good crap, but does nothing to secure your interests or security.

 

[Rupertvdb]

the petrol price one made me laugh, you whine about rises that are laughably small compared to european petrol costs.

 

[Korgoth]

lol...... no I understand that America is capable of being underhanded, I just understand that being underhanded is sometimes necessary, especially when you're dealing with complex matters and every single party involved is being underhanded......... to act otherwise is noble and all that feel good crap, but does nothing to secure your interests or security.

But when any other country plays this game you cry foul.

 

[Scoobnfl]

But when any other country plays this game you cry foul.

no. I cry foul when other countries cry foul for what we're doing when the very things we're doing are no worse than what they're doing.

 

[CptStern]

no. I cry foul when other countries cry foul for what we're doing when the very things we're doing are no worse than what they're doing.

ooooooookayyyy :rolling:

the difference here is that the US is playing the hero when it's actually the villain

 

[Tr0n]

ooooooookayyyy :rolling:

the difference here is that the US is playing the hero when it's actually the villain

Thats politics. :thumbs:

 

[CptStern]

Thats politics. :thumbs:

then why are so many americans supporting the war? no one else does .. why did so many americans throw "saddam has wmd" in the rest of the world's face yet when it's proven wrong, they STILL support the war? it's not a question of politics, it's a question of who has a better propaganda machine

 

[Tr0n]

then why are so many americans supporting the war? no one else does .. why did so many americans throw "saddam has wmd" in the rest of the world's face yet when it's proven wrong, they STILL support the war? it's not a question of politics, it's a question of who has a better propaganda machine

Exactly politics. Politics are what goes behind that propaganda machine.

51% voted the monkey
48% voted the big chin freak

So I wouldn't say the propaganda machine worked that well considering almost half the country voted for kerry.Everyone is just gonna have to wait the next 4 years and see what happens.

 

[Bodacious]

then why are so many americans supporting the war? no one else does .. why did so many americans throw "saddam has wmd" in the rest of the world's face yet when it's proven wrong, they STILL support the war? it's not a question of politics, it's a question of who has a better propaganda machine

Because the people who support the war know it wasn't just about WMDs. They know there are other things that had to do with it. They aren't brainwashed by the MSM.

 

[CptStern]

bull, this was about one thing and one thing alone: WMD ...okay okay they tried to pawn off 9/11 on saddam but very few people bought that nonsense:



Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.

Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003



Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw,
Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

 

[Bodacious]

Quote all the WMD crap you want, there is and was more to the war in Iraq than WMDs. 51% of the people realize that, 49% are brainwashed.

 

[Tr0n]

Quote all the WMD crap you want, there is and was more to the war in Iraq than WMDs. 51% of the people realize that, 49% are brainwashed.

How about both sides are brainwashed with bullshit?

Because from my point of view it seems like it.

 

[Absinthe]

Quote all the WMD crap you want, there is and was more to the war in Iraq than WMDs. 51% of the people realize that, 49% are brainwashed.

51% has personally invested too much into the war that they'll latch on to any reason to support it. 49% saw through the bullshit and realized the war was a sham.

 

[CptStern]

Quote all the WMD crap you want, there is and was more to the war in Iraq than WMDs. 51% of the people realize that, 49% are brainwashed.

please prove to me that the days leading up to the invasion there was any other justification besides WMD. I gave you my evidence now you suport your claims with proof

 

[No Limit]

please prove to me that the days leading up to the invasion there was any other justification besides WMD. I gave you my evidence now you suport your claims with proof

Point him to the thread where I highlighted Bush's case for war in his state of the union address where he only addressed these other issues once out of around 2000 words. Then in the congress resolution the only thing that was ever talked about was WMDs.

 

[^Ben]

please prove to me that the days leading up to the invasion there was any other justification besides WMD. I gave you my evidence now you suport your claims with proof

Duh you are they crazy left and YOU are brainwashed by some crazy sissy liberal soure :angel:

 

[CptStern]

yes!!! and as we speak I'm making sandwiches to send to the brave insurgents, making myself a red commie t-shirt, and singing hippie songs about oppression!!!

"we shall overcoooooome" ...man I got the munchies! PEACE!!!

 

[burner69]

yes!!! and as we speak I'm making sandwiches to send to the brave insurgents, making myself a red commie t-shirt, and singing hippie songs about oppression!!!

"we shall overcoooooome" ...man I got the munchies! PEACE!!!

You too hur?

lmao :naughty:

 

[Bodacious]

Point him to the thread where I highlighted Bush's case for war in his state of the union address where he only addressed these other issues once out of around 2000 words. Then in the congress resolution the only thing that was ever talked about was WMDs.

Yes, look at the thread of which No Limit speaks, where I prove him wrong about Congress's resolution for war only having stuff about WMDs by pointing out at least 3 sections that talk about humanitarian efforts in Iraq.


Here is Congress' Resolution

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

UN Resolutions regarding Iraq

 

[burner69]

If I remember correctly it was mentioned at the last bit, after 10x as much on WMDs.