(ot) HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY AMERICANS!

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:39 pm

forge wrote:... hold up a sperm bank or something!

"Now everyone keep still, and nobody gets hurt..."

robtronik · Post by **robtronik** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 3:52 pm

djshiva wrote:
robtronik wrote:I like what Bush said today on the Larry King show:

"I'd rather be right than popular."

I also love how Saddam gets more sympathy than Bush does. It's a wacky world out there for those on the left.

rob.
yeah and i'd rather be a nerdy ableton user debating on forums than a mass murderer.

anyhow, i am really sick of that kind of baiting that people do, where if you take issue with US foreign policy in iraq, that somehow you are saddam's best buddy. it's disingenuous and bad debate tactic. try again.

and if you are gonna spit shit like that, you would be wise to do your research and realize that the US WAS buddy buddy with saddam, when he served our purposes. this is one of my favorite pics evar:

and yes, that's donald rumsfeld shaking hands with saddam hussein, in case you were wondering.

you wrote this as though it would be something new or a surprise. LOL.

do a quick search - when was that pict taken? Right.

Please refer to my prior post about strategy and the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". You really are somebody who demands more than reality can provide. Nothing wrong with being a utopianist, but c'mon now. AS IF that somehow means that Saddam shouldn't have been removed. Bush is in power and made that decision in the last 4 years, not the last 20 years when Donald made that trip.... If you want to criticize the U.S. for its overall foriegn policy decisions in the middle east, I'm totally in favor of it. We made a lot of mistakes. But Bush is not part of that status quo now.. hence my position on him being a progressive liberal in the middle east (not withstanding stinky's criticism of that label).

rob.

stinky · Post by **stinky** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:17 pm

If you want to criticize the U.S. for its overall foriegn policy decisions in the middle east, I'm totally in favor of it. We made a lot of mistakes. But Bush is not part of that status quo now.. hence my position on him being a progressive liberal in the middle east (not withstanding stinky's criticism of that label).

So you're willing to admit that "We made a lot of mistakes" regarding "overall foriegn policy decisions in the middle east." but you think "Bush is not part of that status quo now." What a crock of shit. What's changed exactly? That dude in the picture is our current Sec. of Def. The same people that were implicated in the Iran Contra affair back then are running our current goverment which you hold in such high regard. Known criminals. Shit, if ever there was a time to believe in conspiracies... how about people running a proven conspiracy ring, and then being let back into office to continue conspiring.

I'm not looking forward to Bush's progressive liberal policies coming back to roost like that of the previous administrations. I'm not certain that anyone's learned from any mistakes... In fact, i do believe Bush is not "part of that status quo now"... He's far worse than they ever were. Back then, they had 'some' measure of restraint, and more transparency of government. Now, he's trying something that's already been tested & failed (Korea & Vietnam, etc) and expecting a different result (That's the definition of insanity right there). I mean Jesus, if your presets on your midi controller are fucked up, than you reset them! It's that fucking simple.

robtronik · Post by **robtronik** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:10 pm

stinky wrote:
If you want to criticize the U.S. for its overall foriegn policy decisions in the middle east, I'm totally in favor of it. We made a lot of mistakes. But Bush is not part of that status quo now.. hence my position on him being a progressive liberal in the middle east (not withstanding stinky's criticism of that label).
So you're willing to admit that "We made a lot of mistakes" regarding "overall foriegn policy decisions in the middle east." but you think "Bush is not part of that status quo now." What a crock of shit. What's changed exactly? That dude in the picture is our current Sec. of Def. The same people that were implicated in the Iran Contra affair back then are running our current goverment which you hold in such high regard. Known criminals. Shit, if ever there was a time to believe in conspiracies... how about people running a proven conspiracy ring, and then being let back into office to continue conspiring.

I'm not looking forward to Bush's progressive liberal policies coming back to roost like that of the previous administrations. I'm not certain that anyone's learned from any mistakes... In fact, i do believe Bush is not "part of that status quo now"... He's far worse than they ever were. Back then, they had 'some' measure of restraint, and more transparency of government. Now, he's trying something that's already been tested & failed (Korea & Vietnam, etc) and expecting a different result (That's the definition of insanity right there). I mean Jesus, if your presets on your midi controller are fucked up, than you reset them! It's that fucking simple.

stinky - your logic is living up to your namesake. c'mon, don't be so dense.

Bush is not part of that status quo. Please tell me how his actions are somehow the same as any past administration? THEY AREN'T. That's why they are causing so much controversy. He's taken a different, very direct, very public action in changing the status quo DIRECTLY over there against obvious transgressors.

Don't be so dense, twisted up so tightly, in your own world and argumentst that you can't see that.

Secondly, Iran/Contra was a secret exercise - Iraq was anything but a secret. Get your conspiracies straight at least if you are going to argue that there is a conspiracy.

Thirdly, Korea and Vietnam are not analogous to this current effort. You are so fully up into your own twisted logic that you can't see the difference. The better analogy is Japan and Germany.

Vietnam was a slow escalation. Vietnam had over 50,000 U.S. troops die. Vietnam was never a full occupation of a country. Vietnam was never a declared war. Oh, and we lost vietnam as well. Notice that we are now occupying the full of Iraq? Notice that there are elections? Notice that we've lost 2,500+ troops in four years? (Tragic, but no where NEAR the level of Korea or Vietnam).

Sorry bro. Your chocolate is in your peanut butter. Get it straight.

LOL.

.02 and a

rob.

stinky · Post by **stinky** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:04 pm

The better analogy is Japan and Germany.

Again, comparing this to WWII is outlandish. You're eating the bullshit they're feeding you. Iraq didn't attack anybody. Both Germany and Japan attacked the US.

Iran/Contra was a secret exercise - Iraq was anything but a secret.

I wasn't comparing conspiracies. Merely stating that the same people who were part of that administrations trevails in that regard are again running the show, and would be more than willing to justify their means to those ends.

Korea and Vietnam are not analogous to this current effort.

Of course they are. Neither of them attacked the US. The US was trying to impose it's own social standard on sovereign states that were trying to direct their own courses.

Vietnam was never a declared war

I haven't heard any declaration of war in this case either.

smutek · Post by **smutek** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:36 pm

The bottom line is that Iraq never posed any threat to the United States. Every reason we were given for the invasion was a lie. And I do not buy that it was a mistake, and I don't buy that it was a fuck up at the CIA.

The reason people refer to our ties with Iraq in the past, at-least the reasons I do, is to counter the people who believe we are in Iraq on some type of moral mission. Trying to do the right thing. Tryng to spread democracy.

Because when people try to defend this bullshit war and I tell them that Iraq never posed a threat, Iraq never had WMD's, Iraq never tried to acquire depleted uranium from Niger, and Iraq never had ties with "Al Qaeda", and I say hey, we've lost 2539 soldiers over there, at-least 20,000 wounded, and maybe as many as 50,000 dead Iraqi civilians. At that point they almost always say:

"look, Sadam was a bad guy, he was a brutal dictator, it was the right thing to do, it was a good moral decision".

And when they say that we can show them pictures of the same Neo-Cons who now run the United States government shaking hands with the same murderous dictator that they were somehow recently "morally obligated" to remove and we can tell them it had not a fucking thing to do with right or wrong.

Maybe you are a realist, so am I. But there are loads of people out there, and loads of American kids fighting over there who still think that Iraq and 9/11 are somehow connected. That still think the war in Iraq actually has something to do with this bullshit "war on terror".

Fighting and dying for lies that are being fed to them by the United States government. Those casualty lists aren't just numbers, those are actually real people who died, most of them probably, very horrible deaths. Tens of thousands of dead fucking people man. Dead, shattered, twisted, bloody bodies. Grieving families, crying mothers, for a bunch of lies.

I don't know about you, but I am not ok with that. I never will be.

djadonis206 · Post by **djadonis206** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:46 pm

Please read very carefully, please

[Philadelphia, day, Independence Hall. There's plenty of argument
still going on]

CONGRESSMEN
Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble
Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble!

DICKINSON
We cannot found a country based on war!

ADAMS
We cannot found a country that is afraid
to fight!

CONGRESSMAN
Rabble!

CONGRESSMEN
Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble
Rabble! Oh my, it's Benjamin Franklin.
It's Benjamin Franklin. It's Benjamin
Franklin.

CARTMAN
Oh, it's Benjamin Franklin. It's Benjamin
Franklin. It's Benjamin Franklin.

HANCOCK
Mr. Franklin, where do you stand on
the war issue?

FRANKLIN
I believe that if we are to form a new
country, we cannot be a country that
appears war-hungry and violent to the
rest of the world. However, we also
cannot be a country that appears weak
and unwilling to fight to the rest of
the world. So, what if we form a country
that appears to want both?

JEFFERSON
Yes. Yes of course. We go to war, and
protest going to war at the same time.

DICKINSON
Right. If the people of our new country
are allowed to do whatever they wish,
then some will support the war and some
will protest it.

FRANKLIN
And that means that as a nation, we
could go to war with whomever we wished,
but at the same time, act like we didn't
want to. If we allow the people to protest
what the government does, then the country
will be forever blameless.

ADAMS
It's like having your cake, and eating
it, too.

CONGRESSMAN 2
Think of it: an entire nation founded
on saying one thing and doing another.

HANCOCK
And we will call that country the United
States of America.

CARTMAN
Wow, I get it now!

djadonis206 · Post by **djadonis206** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:53 pm

Please, for the sake of the children, read this

[South Park, town square. The townsfolk are still attacking each
other and killing more of their number. One man kills another
with a "PEACE NOW" sign. A war supporter runs a flag pole through
a protester, then pulls it back out again. Stan, Kyle, and Kenny
watch from the other end of the square, towards the stage as
the carnage continues]

CARTMAN
Everyone, stop! Please!

TOWNSMAN
The-the child! The child, from the hospital.

CARTMAN
If you all don't mind, I would like
to do my report now. I know what the
founding fathers would say.

STAN
He does?

KYLE
He does?

CARTMAN
I learned somethin' today. This country
was founded by some of the smartest
thinkers the world has ever seen. And
they knew one thing: that a truely great
country can go to war, and at the same
time, act like it doesn't want to.
You people who are for the war, you
need the protesters. Because they make
the country look like it's made of sane,
caring individuals. And you people who
are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers,
because, if our whole country was made
up of nothing but soft pussy protesters,
we'd get taken down in a second. That's
why the founding fathers decided we
should have both. It's called "having
your cake and eating it too."

RANDY
He's right. The strength of this country
is the ability to do one thing and say
another.

SKEETER
Yeah, but... if it weren't for all you
guys protesting, why everyone around
the world would hate the American people
instead of just the President.

KYLE'S FATHER
And if it weren't for you people flexing
your arms, America could easily get
taken over by terrorists or... or China.

mike holiday · Post by **mike holiday** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:05 pm

forge · Post by **forge** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:43 pm

adonis!

djadonis206 · Post by **djadonis206** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:48 pm

yes

If you've noticed I've stopped using the emoticon (smiley faces, rolling eyes etc) for reasons I can't explain

Emoticon's freak me out right now

what if your're talking to your buddy at the bar and after every statement he held up a big yellow round smiley face or a big yellow round wink <----

creepy

Emoticon's are officially creepy

forge · Post by **forge** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:06 pm

djadonis206 wrote:yes

If you've noticed I've stopped using the emoticon (smiley faces, rolling eyes etc) for reasons I can't explain

Emoticon's freak me out right now

what if your're talking to your buddy at the bar and after every statement he held up a big yellow round smiley face or a big yellow round wink <----

creepy

Emoticon's are officially creepy

Ah think you're just smoking too much

in a bar you wouldnt be typing every sentence

they give it a bit of personality and more importantly help show what tone people are taking

for example:

shut the hell up adonis!

is different to

shut the hell up adonis

smutek · Post by **smutek** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:07 pm

'The overwhelming majority of detainees held in Abu Ghraib were in all liklihood innocent' - Amrit Singh, Lawyer ACLU"

Victims of U.S. air strike.

More

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/uncensored

Pretty funny stuff eh.

forge · Post by **forge** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:10 pm

you know what - sometimes I start to chill and think "what's the point worrying" ala Hambone and his mountain bike

but seeing pictures of kids like that makes my blood boil

I have a 4 yo and I cant fathom what that would be like - not to mention th eamount of anger and hatred I would feel to the people that did it

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:17 pm

Guess where these are from...

US air strikes? Nope... Iraqi chemical attacks on the Kurds.

P.S. Contrary to popular belief, I DO care. I just try to keep things in a different perspective. We're not always the bad guys.