Bush has done it again [Archive]

gekko

02-09-2002, 11:23 AM

A top Revolutionary Guards commander has warned that his forces will destroy Persian Gulf oil fields if the United States threatens Iran.

He said the oil fields in the region, which are the sources of energy for the United States, will be threatened because in the case of a U.S. attack on Iran, the country will not limit its defensive actions to within Iranian borders.

Wow Mr. Bush! You're doing a great job running our country. Now not only are you pissing off other nations with your Nazi speeches, you're getting our oil supply threatened! Thank you Mr. Bush! What else would help this economy than getting an entire oil field bombed and raise gas prices to $5/gal? I guess you must've forgot that most of our oil is being used in the war. Real smart Mr. Bush!

Top Iranian leaders have been warning the United States against taking military action in Iran. Iranians have been angry that U.S. President George W. Bush said Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, was part of an "axis of evil" that supports terrorism.

Mr. Bush is suffering from Shooter-syndrom! He doesn't know when to shut up! 80% approval my ass! Can we say Hitler?

"Iranians will not roll the red carpet for the U.S. If they do come, the only red that they will see will be the blood of the aggressors," Rafsanjani said.

Oh look, more people want to kill us. Great, real great.

Iranian leaders have called for a large anti-U.S. demonstration on Monday -- the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution -- to send a signal to Washington that Iranians are firmly behind their leaders in confronting any aggression.

No not terrorists, you havce a whole country against you're stupidity! Will someone kill they man? Or hell, at least let Cheney do the speaking!

Revival

02-09-2002, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by gekko
Mr. Bush is suffering from Shooter-syndrom! He doesn't know when to shut up! 80% approval my ass! Can we say Hitler?
Hitler.

I agree with you on this one, despite your comment about me.. Bush is making too many stupid mistakes, and is pissing too many people off.

Joeiss

02-09-2002, 11:43 AM

Does Iran, Iraq or North Korea have nukes?

And Bush is an idiot. I am not sure why he wants to take on all of this terrorist thing by himself. I think it should be a United Nations thing to stop terrorism, not an American led thing where Bush makes all the decisions.

GameKinG

02-09-2002, 01:19 PM

I wonder what Bill C. Would do in this situation (before the threats stated in topic.

GameMaster

02-09-2002, 02:08 PM

Texans these days :rolleyes: ...;)

DeathsHand

02-09-2002, 02:12 PM

I agree that he's doing stupid stuff, and I don't see why he has such a high approval rating... Oh wait, yeah I do, everybody has this "yay go america" mood, so it makes Bush so amazingly good when we attack back after such a major terrorist attack :rolleyes:

:D

*waits for nwochrisnwo to come in here and start shouting a bunch of racist comments*

:sneaky:

Ridley

02-09-2002, 02:36 PM

It's kind of funny that you should compare Bush to Hitler because my History teacher was saying the same thing in class a couple of days ago. I agreed with him and I agree with you. I mean I've been saying ever since he was voted in as President that the guy was a warhappy, stupid redneck (hope that didn't offend anyone here but that's what I think of him so :p). I mean all this you're with us or you're against us crap is just that. As for his approval rating, I think if you put Richard Nixon in the office replacing Bush, his approval rating would be about the same ;).

Does anyone else think the government is pushing this whole patriotism thing a little too much? I mean the flag from the WTC being raised at the Olympics was a nice gesture and all, but don't you think it's beginning to be a bit too much now? Don't get me wrong, being patriotic towards your country is a great thing, but.....do you get what I mean? :unsure:

DeathsHand

02-09-2002, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Ridley
Does anyone else think the government is pushing this whole patriotism thing a little too much? I mean the flag from the WTC being raised at the Olympics was a nice gesture and all, but don't you think it's beginning to be a bit too much now? Don't get me wrong, being patriotic towards your country is a great thing, but.....do you get what I mean? :unsure:

Without it, bush's approval rating would probably drop a whole lot.... ;)

If people stopped being very patriotic (wether fake or not ;) ) about all this, they probably wouldn't care much about the military or whatever and what it's doing, and they wouldn't be like "WOO! TAKE THAT, TERRORISTS!" and instead they'd be like "Hmm... I wonder if Cheney really is hiding something about that Enron dealy :hmm:" ;)

I never got into the patriotic stuff anyways, although I kinda liked the WTC flag thing... just cuz... well, I mean the olympics are taking place in the USA... and it's a flag that was recovered from the place of the worst terrorist attack ever on the US where thousands of citizens from countries around the world were killed...

So it all fits nice'n'good in the ceremonies, IMO...

But meh...

Ridley

02-09-2002, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by DeathsHand
Without it, bush's approval rating would probably drop a whole lot.... ;)

And you know what's sad? He'll probably go down as one of the greatest presidents of all time. But then again, he's still got some time in office to more things that could make that more believable (doubt it though :p).

If people stopped being very patriotic (wether fake or not ;) ) about all this, they probably wouldn't care much about the military or whatever and what it's doing, and they wouldn't be like "WOO! TAKE THAT, TERRORISTS!" and instead they'd be like "Hmm... I wonder if Cheney really is hiding something about that Enron dealy :hmm:" ;)

I never got into the patriotic stuff anyways, although I kinda liked the WTC flag thing... just cuz... well, I mean the olympics are taking place in the USA... and it's a flag that was recovered from the place of the worst terrorist attack ever on the US where thousands of citizens from countries around the world were killed...

So it all fits nice'n'good in the ceremonies, IMO...

But meh...

But shouldn't people just be patriotic without all the "Yay we just killed another terrorist/destroyed another camp/etc. Go team!"? :unsure: Then again when stuff like this doesn't happen to a nation for a while, people begin to take it for granted. Almost seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't, kind of thing to me :unsure:.

Oh don't get me wrong, like I said the WTC flag thing was a nice gesture but ......arrrgh I don't know.

Joeiss

02-09-2002, 03:16 PM

Bush compared to Hitler, I never thought about that. I mean, Bush isn't letting any countries be neutral. They are either with America or against America. But, wasn't America neutral in WWII until Japan attacked Pearl Harbour? So, is Bush being like Hitler, like he is war crazy and just wants to control everything. Or, is Bush trying to help all countries to not make the same mistake that America did in WWII? I think he could be viewed both ways, as a lunatic, and as a life saving guy.

DeathsHand

02-09-2002, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Ridley

But shouldn't people just be patriotic without all the "Yay we just killed another terrorist/destroyed another camp/etc. Go team!"? :unsure:

Exactly.... but they're not...

Before the terrorist stuff it was all democrats bickering back and forth about tax stuff... and people complaining about the woman's right to choose thing... and Bush's approval rating was at like... what? 50 something percent?

Then all of a sudden we're attacked and we're like "WOO HOO! GO AMERICA!" and then we attack and we're like "YAAAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

Maybe that's why gekko calls all that patriotism fake (at least I think he called it fake) because it pops up when it's convenient or whatever you wanna say ;)

And now stuff is dying down with the USA like... pretty much done with the bombing and such (or at least the major bombingness) in afghanistan, but not doing anything to another target yet...

So now it's the Enron scandle... "Why is it a big deal if these talks are private or not? What is Cheney hiding?" and stuff like that...

But I dunno...

MiscX

02-09-2002, 04:00 PM

do you honestly think that Bush is the only one making all these decisions? by himself? ha.ha.ha.

sorry, folks. we don't have a dictatorship. i think it's sad that you compare bush to hitler. HITLER! he's not trying to annihilate an entire race, or take over the planet. he's a conservative president who is going to follow his views that we should protect america at all costs, and perhaps, AMERICA BEING THE SUPERPOWER, we need to take steps to prevent terrorist actions in other nations as well as our own.

i'd say that's MUCH better than selling military and nuclear secrets to the chinese (you think Clinton wasn't doing that?) if this happened while clinton was in office i would guess he would avoid war since he was screwing our military out of decent pay/equipment anyway and go have some more "Peace Talks" that we know are never going to work.

impressive liberalism in here though.

DeathsHand

02-09-2002, 04:42 PM

For some reason, when I saw your name under the last person to reply thing, I knew you'd say something like that... and you only have 5 posts... ;)

Angrist

02-09-2002, 04:48 PM

We Europeans hated Bush from the day he won the polls. :mad:

gekko

02-09-2002, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Joeiss
Does Iran, Iraq or North Korea have nukes?

And Bush is an idiot. I am not sure why he wants to take on all of this terrorist thing by himself. I think it should be a United Nations thing to stop terrorism, not an American led thing where Bush makes all the decisions.

Bush doesn't quite realize terrorists are there because they don't like American culture. As long as we don't change our culture, people won't like us. You can't kill off everyone who has a grudge against the US. Al Qaeda was responsible for a few things before we ever got the 9/11. And yes, that was a big deal. Shut them down the best you can, and then try to get the countries to stop terrorism in their country. We can't fight a war with every country we feel might have terrorists. We've lost men in Afghanistan fighting them, and we've lost men in Somalia fighting them. If we go to N. Korea, Iran, and Iraq, we'll lose even more men. You get to a point where it's not worth it. More soldiers will die trying to stop terrorism than the terrorist attacks will kill.

I agree that he's doing stupid stuff, and I don't see why he has such a high approval rating... Oh wait, yeah I do, everybody has this "yay go america" mood, so it makes Bush so amazingly good when we attack back after such a major terrorist attack

That's why I compared him to Hitler. After WWI, Germany was being screwed over. Hitler wasn't happy because they made all Germans look like ****. He turned his country around, told everyone how great Germans were. He preached nationalism, and that's what Bush is doing right now. In reality, he's not doing that great of job. But he'll tell you how great it is to be an American, and how the free world will conquer terrorism.

Does anyone else think the government is pushing this whole patriotism thing a little too much? I mean the flag from the WTC being raised at the Olympics was a nice gesture and all, but don't you think it's beginning to be a bit too much now? Don't get me wrong, being patriotic towards your country is a great thing, but.....do you get what I mean?

It was too much. That, and that's against flag rules. The flag looked like ****. It's a flag, not a rag. Make the thing look nice! I want to see the flag flying in the wind, not pieces of it flying, and big holes in it. I personally felt it was a disgrace to this country to use that flag.

Maybe that's why gekko calls all that patriotism fake (at least I think he called it fake) because it pops up when it's convenient or whatever you wanna say

Exactly why I call it fake. Before that we had people bitching about the things in the country. No one was flying the flag. No one said "yay, I'm an American!" Then one day terrorists strike. Still nothing but a shock. A few people fly the flag, most still don't care. Then Bush goes on and preaches nationalism, and within the next few days there are flags flying everywhere. Then everyone thinks they're all patriotic because they fly the flag. Like hell they're patriotic! Before that, they didn't give a ****. They could care less about the flag. Veterans Day to them is just a day to take off of work. They don't give a **** about the men who served under the flag. Then, when they feel it's convinient, they're all of a sudden patriots. Our military has been risking their lives every day, but until we go to war, no one cares. Firefighters put their life on the line all the time, but they never cared. It's like we'll be patriotic when the time is right, and after that we'll start bitching about stupid things again. Our society doesn't teach patriotism, and we're not patriotic. Give it 10 years, no one will own a flag anymore.

sorry, folks. we don't have a dictatorship. i think it's sad that you compare bush to hitler. HITLER! he's not trying to annihilate an entire race, or take over the planet. he's a conservative president who is going to follow his views that we should protect america at all costs, and perhaps, AMERICA BEING THE SUPERPOWER, we need to take steps to prevent terrorist actions in other nations as well as our own.

It's really sad they teach you so little about Hitler.

Angrist

02-09-2002, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by gekko

It's really sad they teach you so little about Hitler. I thought you were the one that said 'Thank God for Hitler'. Why the sudden change?

Jin

02-09-2002, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by MiscX
do you honestly think that Bush is the only one making all these decisions? by himself? ha.ha.ha.

sorry, folks. we don't have a dictatorship. i think it's sad that you compare bush to hitler. HITLER! he's not trying to annihilate an entire race, or take over the planet. he's a conservative president who is going to follow his views that we should protect america at all costs, and perhaps, AMERICA BEING THE SUPERPOWER, we need to take steps to prevent terrorist actions in other nations as well as our own.

i'd say that's MUCH better than selling military and nuclear secrets to the chinese (you think Clinton wasn't doing that?) if this happened while clinton was in office i would guess he would avoid war since he was screwing our military out of decent pay/equipment anyway and go have some more "Peace Talks" that we know are never going to work.

impressive liberalism in here though.

I totally agree with you. How can you guys even think about comparing Hitler to Bush? They may have a few similarities if you look hard enough, but you can find similarities between any two people in the world.

Hitler was a dictator who had a hatred for Jewish people. Bush isn't a dictator and although he is against terrorism, he doesn't hate the Islamic race as a whole. He didn't put Islamic-Americans in prison like Japanese-Americans were during WWII.

Hitler was a great speaker, he used his great speaking abilities to convince crowds or to manipulate people. Bush on the other hand is a terrible speaker and only convinces by his actions, because he is one of the least articulate leaders on earth.

Hitler fought other countries for selfish purposes, to gain land and more power. Bush is fighting to help the Afghanistan people, for the American dream, for the people's God given rights. Sure there may be a few benifits that may come to America, but the real purpose for fighting isn't to gain, but to prevent another tragedy like 9-11, and to help the oppressed people of Afghanistan(especially women). Some people may say that it is to gain money from their oil, but the costs of fueling planes, dropping dozens of bombs, and sending food supplies for thousands of Afghanistan people daily, is ENORMOUS. America is definetly losing more money than they are gaining by attempting to stop terrorism.

MiscX

02-09-2002, 05:20 PM

*gasp* finally someone with some sort of sense.

"give it 10 years, no one will own a flag anymore"

that's BS. I'll still own one. I have one in my room all the time.

and, that's how the country works. people (like you, gekko) are cynical. sure, we're all a little cynical. but as has happened before in this country, we all argue and complain about things in this country but we will support it when it is under attack. i think the real problem is that people take this country and all the liberties they have for granted.

obviously there are tons of people who don't like this country. and those people baffle me by living here. why not live somewhere else, then? or try and change things? its a lot of these cynical people who just sit and bitch about things and then don't do anything to change it (like vote).

not saying that you people don't vote, of course.

haha, i think that's funny DH.

sdtPikachu

02-09-2002, 05:25 PM

Gotta agree with Angrist... with the exception of President Blair (another born again christian... see sig), almost everyone in the UK thinks Bush is an incompetent idiot.

"I am not sure why he wants to take on all of this terrorist thing by himself."

Maybe he thought it'd be good for his approval ratings...?
You can never eradicate terrorism. As long as the means exist, so will the ends.

"Texans these days..."

"If ignorance ever goes $40 a barrel, I want drilling right on that mans head"
--Jim Hightower, Texan agriculture minister, talking of Senator G W Bush's agricultural policies

Funny how history repeats itself, isn't it?

"I agree that he's doing stupid stuff, and I don't see why he has such a high approval rating... Oh wait, yeah I do, everybody has this "yay go america" mood, so it makes Bush so amazingly good when we attack back after such a major terrorist attack"

Hence the "Hitler" comparisons. See below.

"Then all of a sudden we're attacked and we're like "WOO HOO! GO AMERICA!" and then we attack and we're like "YAAAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"
Maybe that's why gekko calls all that patriotism fake (at least I think he called it fake) because it pops up when it's convenient or whatever you wanna say"

Yep, I think this is more or less the crux of the matter.

"sorry, folks. we don't have a dictatorship. i think it's sad that you compare bush to hitler. HITLER! he's not trying to annihilate an entire race, or take over the planet"

It'd be nice to think that. Bush has already fostered the notion "if you're not with us, you're against use", like the non-neutraklity Joeiss mentioned above. Bush isn't trying to eliminate a race? Then why does he use words like "crusade" in reference to islam? Why does he have such a thing about "bringing america together under god" (a statement which is illegal in america I believe). As for not trying to take over the plenet? Maybe not, but he's doing a damn good job of showing incredible preference to those companies and charities who folow the same relgion as him.
I'm not saying Bush IS Hitler, and neither is anyone else. There are an incredible number of parallels though.

"AMERICA BEING THE SUPERPOWER, we need to take steps to prevent terrorist actions in other nations as well as our own."

Maybe you could have started this 30 years ago by refusing to give money to the IRA who have killed several thousand in their time.

""Peace Talks" that we know are never going to work."

I'm glad you are so certain of this. Why bother asking them to surrender when you can just kill every last one of them? Cos as you so rightly say, peace never works, and we should just annihilate everything, and give all our money to the military, yeah?

"impressive liberalism in here though."

You say it like you think it's a bad thing...

"That's why I compared him to Hitler. After WWI, Germany was being screwed over. Hitler wasn't happy because they made all Germans look like ****. He turned his country around, told everyone how great Germans were. He preached nationalism, and that's what Bush is doing right now. In reality, he's not doing that great of job. But he'll tell you how great it is to be an American, and how the free world will conquer terrorism."

Happy now MiscX? It's refreshing to see someone who knows how Hitler got himself to be so bloody popular.

Very good post gekko.

"I thought you were the one that said 'Thank God for Hitler'. Why the sudden change?"

If I remember correctly, it was PureEvil and nwoChris... but I don't know.
Even if it was gekko, he seems to know his onions now.

Jin

02-09-2002, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by gekko

He turned his country around, told everyone how great Germans were. He preached nationalism, and that's what Bush is doing right now.

Bush never said that one race was superior to any other one like Hitler. There is nothing wrong with Nationalism, to be proud of one's country, but there is something wrong with racism. Hitler taught that people with blonde hair, and blue eyes were superior to everyone else, and that Jewish people were inferior to everyone else and therefore deserved to be killed.

sdtPikachu

02-09-2002, 05:34 PM

"How can you guys even think about comparing Hitler to Bush?"

Because like Hitler he's using something that happened to his country to further his own popularity. He's already told us what his agenda is. Now all he needs is enough people to "believe" in it to make it happen.
I wonder how he'll go about that?

" America is definetly losing more money than they are gaining by attempting to stop terrorism."

Or maybe they'r ejust embarrased that it was America who put the Taliban in power in the first place. Do the words "knee", "jerk" and "reaction" mean anything?

" its a lot of these cynical people who just sit and bitch about things and then don't do anything to change it (like vote)."

And it's the majority of "anti-liberals" who also vote that stop things from eevr being accomplished.
I wonder when America will vote in a black president. Or a hindu president. Or even an athiest presdient.

Answer: not for at least the next 50 years. Your country as a whole is just to damn conserative on the whole IMO.

gekko

02-09-2002, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Angrist
I thought you were the one that said 'Thank God for Hitler'. Why the sudden change?

You should've tried clicking on the link. It was a post about Wolfenstein. The only reference to Hitler was we wouldn't have this game if it wasn't for him.

Jin, you also seem to know very little about Hitler. After WWI, the German people felt worthless. Hitler was a patriotic German, he didn't like that. He felt Germany was being screwed by the Treaty of Versai (sp?), which they were. He preached nationalism, made people feel good about being a German, and that's why they followed him. To show that Germany was a great nation, he conquered other countries. He showed the Germans that they weren't worthless, or weak. The holocaust wasn't in his original intentions. He was in a world of ****, and had no way out, so he needed a scapegoat, and he happened to hate Jews.

Bush is the same way. We get hit with a terrorist attack, Bush tells us that we'll get even, and being an American is so great. Telling us it's so great to be an American, and that we'll end terrorism. Americans feel we're the best in the world and we can take on anyone. While we more or less can, we can't do it all at once, and we can't do it without the loss of hundreds of thousands of men. We have 3 countries who are close to going to war with us, but does anyone care? Of course not, cause we all believe waving our flag will solve all the problems in the world.

This is only the beginning folks. Bush has 3 more years, 3 more years to screw up this country. And if our people are too stupid to understand why WWII started, they obviously won't see any corruption in our own country, not that we're the ones being brain-washed.

Jin

02-09-2002, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by sdtPikachu
"Or maybe they'r ejust embarrased that it was America who put the Taliban in power in the first place. Do the words "knee", "jerk" and "reaction" mean anything?

What the hell? America did not put the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan. Where'd you hear that? After the US helped to defeated the communists they made a mistake by leaving Afghanistan without a stable government. Afterwards the Taliban, a fundamentalist group from Pakistan took advantage of the opportunity and took over. The US did not put the Taliban in charge. There was a king that ruled Afghanistan after the communists left, but he wasn't powerful enough to stop the Taliban from taking power.

This time we are trying to make sure that the same thing doesn't happen again. Nations around the world are helping Afghanistan to form a stable democratic government. If a fundamentalist group similar to the Taliban try to take over again, the US military will take care of them.

Originally posted by sdtPikachu

Answer: not for at least the next 50 years. Your country as a whole is just to damn conserative on the whole IMO.

There is nothing wrong with being conservative, and there isn't anything wrong with being liberal. I think something inbetween is perfect. It's kind of like decentralization, and centralization in a government. If you have too much centralization it's a dictatorship, and if you don't have enough there's no security at all, anarchy would be a common thing.

gekko

02-09-2002, 06:09 PM

Actually, the Taliban was fighting Russia, and we supplied them with weapons to help them defeat the Russians. That gave them enough power to take over the country.

sdtPikachu

02-09-2002, 06:10 PM

"What the hell? America did not put the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan."

So I suppose that giving them billions of dollars worth of weaponry and training to fight off the soviets had nothing to do with them seizing power?

When Afghanistan was invaded by the soviets, America had three choices.
1) Do nothing
2) Fund the Northern Allaince to fight them off
3) Fund the Taliban, a much stronger force that the northern Alliance, to fight them off.

Quelle suprise, America funded the Taliban. After the Soviets left, there was no-one powerful enough in Afghanistan to stop them. America let them seize power, and there was no-way they would have got such a total stranglehold on the country if it wasn't for America. Hence: America placed them in power.

"This time we are trying to make sure that the same thing doesn't happen again."

The American government is making sure it doesn't ake the same mistake twice.

"There is nothing wrong with being conservative"

Well IMO there is. Not being able to be elected if you're not one of the supposed "majority". Even if I wanted to be electedas President there's no way I would be. There are just too many people who would distrust me because I don't believe in god. They would never elect a black president because all the whites would think he would make rules to ensure black superiority. They would never elect a homosexual president, bacuse everyone knows those damned ***s are cursed devil worshippers and will lead this country to hell.

Did you never stop to think why the presidential candidates are almost always exactly the same? The same situation occurs in the UK. It is an excuse for democracy. As Oscar Wilde said, denocracy is the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people.

"...anarchy would be a common thing."

If people were human enough to face up to responsibility, anarchy would be the best form of government there is. The only tyranny that lasts is of the weak over the strong.

Jin

02-09-2002, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by gekko

Jin, you also seem to know very little about Hitler. After WWI, the German people felt worthless. Hitler was a patriotic German, he didn't like that. He felt Germany was being screwed by the Treaty of Versai (sp?), which they were. He preached nationalism, made people feel good about being a German, and that's why they followed him. To show that Germany was a great nation, he conquered other countries. He showed the Germans that they weren't worthless, or weak. The holocaust wasn't in his original intentions. He was in a world of ****, and had no way out, so he needed a scapegoat, and he happened to hate Jews.

Bush is the same way. We get hit with a terrorist attack, Bush tells us that we'll get even, and being an American is so great. Telling us it's so great to be an American, and that we'll end terrorism. Americans feel we're the best in the world and we can take on anyone. While we more or less can, we can't do it all at once, and we can't do it without the loss of hundreds of thousands of men. We have 3 countries who are close to going to war with us, but does anyone care? Of course not, cause we all believe waving our flag will solve all the problems in the world.

Umm... I knew that about Hitler. Although they are under similar circumstances, they are fighting for two completely different things.

Originally posted by gekko

This is only the beginning folks. Bush has 3 more years, 3 more years to screw up this country. And if our people are too stupid to understand why WWII started, they obviously won't see any corruption in our own country, not that we're the ones being brain-washed.

Why do you say that as if you were looking forward to a US downfall. Does it matter whether our leader is Al Gore, or George Bush? Either way we'd be fighting for the same thing. Freedom, Justice, Security, and most importantly for the people. George Bush has 3 years left, and although he could screw things up, he could also make things better. Also, who's to say that someone else wouldn't do the same under his circumstances. Give the guy a break. Sure he may not be the most competent leader, but he has good intentions. Hope for the best, and don't look at him just as a republican, but as the President of the United States. He is working for the beterment of this world, as Al Gore would. Why the hell should we care whether someone is a conservative, or liberal? As long as they believe is righteousness, and do everything they can to make a better world, it doesn't matter.

Jin

02-09-2002, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by sdtPikachu

So I suppose that giving them billions of dollars worth of weaponry and training to fight off the soviets had nothing to do with them seizing power?

The Taliban didn't even come around until around 1995, after the communists left. The US did not support them, but Unicol, an oil company did. They thought that with the Taliban there would be more stability, and they could make more profit. The US did supply Afghanistan with weapons, and other supplies when the communists tried to take over, but it wasn't to one group, it was to anyone that was willing to fight. Usama Bin Laden was a freedom fighter who helped to get rid of the communists, but at the time he wasn't associated with the Taliban.

Originally posted by sdtPikachu

"There is nothing wrong with being conservative"

Well IMO there is. Not being able to be elected if you're not one of the supposed "majority". Even if I wanted to be electedas President there's no way I would be. There are just too many people who would distrust me because I don't believe in god. They would never elect a black president because all the whites would think he would make rules to ensure black superiority. They would never elect a homosexual president, bacuse everyone knows those damned ***s are cursed devil worshippers and will lead this country to hell.

First of all you seemed to have overlooked half of what I said. I did say there was nothing wrong with being a conservative, but I also said that wasn't anything wrong with being a liberal.

Racism is still very real, but things are changing whether you're aware of it or not. For example Jackie Robinson, and Tiger Woods were both discriminated against for being black in a white sport. Right now BMX is almost an all white sport. During a recent event a black person fell on the first corner, got back up, and was able to get second somehow. When they were on the podium, the black guy got more of an applause then the white guy that got first. A few years ago it wouldn't be like that.

MiscX

02-09-2002, 08:34 PM

i agree, "beware the tyranny of the minority" is a good phrase, and quite accurate.

sdtPikachu... look at what you wrote:
"America let them seize power, and there was no-way they would have got such a total stranglehold on the country if it wasn't for America. Hence: America placed them in power."

First, you say American let them seize power, and then you say we placed them in power. I'm sorry but those are two separate things. Us placing them in power would include us PLACING a particular group into power, and as Jin said, we didn't do any such thing. And let's just say we let them seize power. That's different from us putting them there -- they took it themselves. And if it's such a big deal, why didn't any other nations, or the United Nations try and stop us?

Conservatism and liberalism are both always going to exist. Anarchy? "If people were human enough to face up to responsibility, anarchy would be the best form of government there is." Aha, no. Sadly we don't live in such a great world where people feel this way... and true, I believe that we should have a much smaller government but there should be one nonetheless. I don't even know where to start on this... nations without stable governments are all called "power vacuums." People will try and grab power because people are always willing to be led if it results in a more comfortable lifestyle for them. There are tons of people who have different ideas of what "responsiblity" is. Some people don't feel they're responsible for anything.

"I'm glad you are so certain of this. Why bother asking them to surrender when you can just kill every last one of them? Cos as you so rightly say, peace never works, and we should just annihilate everything, and give all our money to the military, yeah?"

yeah, i said peace never works. :rolleyes: no, i was referring to the peace talks in the middle east, where it seems that nothing gets accomplished unless there is some heavy military backing to it. peace talks have accomplished things historically, however they haven't (historically) in the middle east. how long have they been "trying" for "peace" there?

also, every president in the history of the world has preached nationalism...

Jin, you also seem to know very little about Hitler. After WWI, the German people felt worthless. Hitler was a patriotic German, he didn't like that. He felt Germany was being screwed by the Treaty of Versai (sp?), which they were. He preached nationalism, made people feel good about being a German, and that's why they followed him. To show that Germany was a great nation, he conquered other countries. He showed the Germans that they weren't worthless, or weak. The holocaust wasn't in his original intentions. He was in a world of ****, and had no way out, so he needed a scapegoat, and he happened to hate Jews.

Bush is the same way. We get hit with a terrorist attack, Bush tells us that we'll get even, and being an American is so great. Telling us it's so great to be an American, and that we'll end terrorism. Americans feel we're the best in the world and we can take on anyone. While we more or less can, we can't do it all at once, and we can't do it without the loss of hundreds of thousands of men. We have 3 countries who are close to going to war with us, but does anyone care? Of course not, cause we all believe waving our flag will solve all the problems in the world.

yes, EVERY president has told Americans to feel good about being American, and you know why? Because we live in AMERICA! Why the hell would the leader of a nation say "hey... we suck. boo, america." Makes a lot of sense? Yeah, right. By your logic, at LEAST Bush Sr., Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Nixon, Eisenhower, and Truman, who were involved in some sort of war/hostile negotiations are like Hitler. Yes, we all know Hitler used the problems of Germany and nationalism to help himself. But to say that Bush is like Hitler... you miss the entire point. Oh, and it's spelled "Treaty of Versailles". Americans feel they're the best in the world because that's what we SHOULD feel. In theory, you should live in the best country in the world, and that's why we live here. If we thought this country was terrible, we wouldn't live here anymore.

I find it really disheartening that you're so predicting the downfall of the United States, gekko. If Al Gore was in office, you think he'd do much different?

I think you all have it backwards (except maybe Jin). when we were attacked, I didn't sit like a mindless drone and wait for the President to say "be proud to be American" and then all of a sudden have a sense of purpose. I saw the attack and said "whoever did this better pay." And that's what the president does. He responds to the American people's wishes. Al Gore would have had to have done the same or commit political suicide. Remember, in America there exists a thing called "popular sovereignty" -- THE PEOPLE ARE KING. Maybe they don't teach you that in foreign countries.

and if you think one man can destroy this country, you're dead mistaken. That's why we have separation of powers, and checks and balances. unfortunately you all seem to be in the dark on how the us government operates. the president doesn't declare war, CONGRESS does. in america we don't have a unitary system like the U.K., for example. In America, we have federalism. We have a system where people are ELECTED to represent the people (who are king). Yes, our government is inefficient but it is IMPOSSIBLE for one man to destroy this country.

Blackmane

02-09-2002, 08:46 PM

I agree with MiscX. I mean, Bush is dealing with terrorism, a very controversial topic to deal with. Either way he stands hes going to get flak from someone. If he stands against terrorism and anyone who supports it, like he is now, you can expect the Middle-east nations to be upset. However, just because people don't like us doesn't mean we should say Bush is doing a bad job. Those people don't like us anyway on a whole.

What if Bush decided to calm down, give up on the war against terrorism, and just leave the middle-east as it is? Not only would they probably still try to blow us up, but the US citizens would be mad at him too. He is obligated to take a stand against it or have a lot of Americans mad at him as he stands by and watches it happen.

And, by the way, whoever thinks Bush can destroy the US on his own is sadly mistaken.

manasecret

02-09-2002, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by MiscX
and if you think one man can destroy this country, you're dead mistaken. That's why we have separation of powers, and checks and balances. unfortunately you all seem to be in the dark on how the us government operates. the president doesn't declare war, CONGRESS does. in america we don't have a unitary system like the U.K., for example. In America, we have federalism. We have a system where people are ELECTED to represent the people (who are king). Yes, our government is inefficient but it is IMPOSSIBLE for one man to destroy this country.

Technically, Congress is the only branch that can declare war. But some time in the last century Congress passed some papers that allowed the Executive to take military action without the consent of Congress. However if the President wants Congress to be happy with him and therefore be more cooperative with him, then he had better not ignore Congress too often.

For example, Congress hasn't declared war with Afghanistan (I think), though I'm sure there's a majority consent (not that it matters). But what Bush is doing now could cause many other countries to get pissed at us if he takes it too far. I'm pretty sure Congress would eventually stop him if Mr. Bush got a little too kill-KILL, but it could possibly be too late by that time.

So could one man destroy our country? Perhaps it's a bit unlikely; after all, most presidents probably don't want to have their career ruined and carry the whole animosity of the American people or any other number of things (assasination?) if they did such a thing. But I bet it could happen. Commander-in-chief with the power to send military action without anyone else's agreement is an easily abused position for someone who doesn't mind the consequences.

But again, (probably) very unlikely.

db

gekko

02-10-2002, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by MiscX
yes, EVERY president has told Americans to feel good about being American, and you know why? Because we live in AMERICA! Why the hell would the leader of a nation say "hey... we suck. boo, america." Makes a lot of sense? Yeah, right. By your logic, at LEAST Bush Sr., Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Nixon, Eisenhower, and Truman, who were involved in some sort of war/hostile negotiations are like Hitler. Yes, we all know Hitler used the problems of Germany and nationalism to help himself. But to say that Bush is like Hitler... you miss the entire point. Oh, and it's spelled "Treaty of Versailles". Americans feel they're the best in the world because that's what we SHOULD feel. In theory, you should live in the best country in the world, and that's why we live here. If we thought this country was terrible, we wouldn't live here anymore.

I find it really disheartening that you're so predicting the downfall of the United States, gekko. If Al Gore was in office, you think he'd do much different?

I think you all have it backwards (except maybe Jin). when we were attacked, I didn't sit like a mindless drone and wait for the President to say "be proud to be American" and then all of a sudden have a sense of purpose. I saw the attack and said "whoever did this better pay." And that's what the president does. He responds to the American people's wishes. Al Gore would have had to have done the same or commit political suicide. Remember, in America there exists a thing called "popular sovereignty" -- THE PEOPLE ARE KING. Maybe they don't teach you that in foreign countries.

and if you think one man can destroy this country, you're dead mistaken. That's why we have separation of powers, and checks and balances. unfortunately you all seem to be in the dark on how the us government operates. the president doesn't declare war, CONGRESS does. in america we don't have a unitary system like the U.K., for example. In America, we have federalism. We have a system where people are ELECTED to represent the people (who are king). Yes, our government is inefficient but it is IMPOSSIBLE for one man to destroy this country.

Idiot. Clinton never preached nationalism. There's a big difference between preaching nationalism and saying America sucks. Most presidents do nothing, Bush preaches, like Hitler. And just like Hitler and the Germans, Americans are too dumb to see what Bush is doing. And as long as Bush keeps them brainwashed, he can do anything and no one will mind.

No one said they wouldn't pay. But no one waved the flag around and pretended to be patriotic. It came later, with the help of Bush.

You need to check your defenition of declaring war. Technically, we never declared war on Afghanistan. But in reality, sending troops onto foreign soil is an act of war, and Bush can control that without congress. SOCOM wants to send men, Bush approves and they're gone. In fact, we had men in Afghanistan at 0600 on 9/12. That's declaring war right there, and congress never declared war. I can garauntee we're in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and N. Korea right now. Congress doesn't need to pass that, SOCOM just needs approval. Congress even went as far as to allow bush to send in the military without their approval. So yes, Bush can declare war, and if he doesn't watch his ass, he'll get us into a war we can't win.

And i guess you forgot about Vietnam. No one wanted to go into Vietnam. All our top advisors said no, even Kennedy said no. LBJ decided we were going to war, and even had all the papers ready 3 days before Kennedy died (Murderer!). He sent us into Vietnam, and spoke with all his advisors that night. They told him that we couldn't win. By the end of the first week, LBJ knew we couldn't win, and spoke with his advisors every day about how we were going to lose. But it was too late for him to turn back, so he went on with Vietnam. Amazing how that works.

1 guy can't declare war, 1 guy can't get us into a war that we'll lose? I beg to differ, it's happened before, and it can happen again.

MiscX

02-10-2002, 01:32 AM

right... clinton never preached nationalism.... sure. are you saying he never said that this was a great nation?

also, i DID check my definition of declaring war, and I am quite correct, even if it is the "technical" meaning. and like you said, we didn't declare war on afghanistan. we had troops there but it wasn't in order to attack the nation, it was in pursuit of terrorists. big difference.

people still wouldn't have waved the flags and acted patriotically if they truly didn't care, btw. but there are millions of people here who DO care, so they did.

also, as a rule of thumb, avoid making generalizations like "no one wanted to go into vietnam" because that's cutting out a lot of people who felt perhaps we should.

also, don't put words into my mouth. i never said one person couldn't get us into a war, because sure, that might be possible. i said one person can't destroy this country, and there's no way in hell you can prove me wrong there so stop twisting my words to make it so you can.

Jin

02-10-2002, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by gekko

Idiot. Clinton never preached nationalism. There's a big difference between preaching nationalism and saying America sucks. Most presidents do nothing, Bush preaches, like Hitler. And just like Hitler and the Germans, Americans are too dumb to see what Bush is doing. And as long as Bush keeps them brainwashed, he can do anything and no one will mind.

No one said they wouldn't pay. But no one waved the flag around and pretended to be patriotic. It came later, with the help of Bush.

You need to check your defenition of declaring war. Technically, we never declared war on Afghanistan. But in reality, sending troops onto foreign soil is an act of war, and Bush can control that without congress. SOCOM wants to send men, Bush approves and they're gone. In fact, we had men in Afghanistan at 0600 on 9/12. That's declaring war right there, and congress never declared war. I can garauntee we're in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and N. Korea right now. Congress doesn't need to pass that, SOCOM just needs approval. Congress even went as far as to allow bush to send in the military without their approval. So yes, Bush can declare war, and if he doesn't watch his ass, he'll get us into a war we can't win.

And i guess you forgot about Vietnam. No one wanted to go into Vietnam. All our top advisors said no, even Kennedy said no. LBJ decided we were going to war, and even had all the papers ready 3 days before Kennedy died (Murderer!). He sent us into Vietnam, and spoke with all his advisors that night. They told him that we couldn't win. By the end of the first week, LBJ knew we couldn't win, and spoke with his advisors every day about how we were going to lose. But it was too late for him to turn back, so he went on with Vietnam. Amazing how that works.

1 guy can't declare war, 1 guy can't get us into a war that we'll lose? I beg to differ, it's happened before, and it can happen again.

You can tell a person is losing an arguement when they start the name calling, make generalizations, and put words into other people's mouths.

DeathsHand

02-10-2002, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Jin

You can tell a person is losing an arguement when they start the name calling, make generalizations, and put words into other people's mouths.

Err... gekko's always like that... :D

:sneaky:

*runs away*

Oh lookies, another 500 posts complete... I'm special...

Angrist

02-10-2002, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by gekko
You should've tried clicking on the link. It was a post about Wolfenstein. The only reference to Hitler was we wouldn't have this game if it wasn't for him.
I did click the link and I still think you shouldn't thank Hitler for anything.
Suddenly I hear you say 'they should teach you more about Hitler' or something like it. :unsure:

gekko

02-10-2002, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by MiscX
right... clinton never preached nationalism.... sure. are you saying he never said that this was a great nation?

also, i DID check my definition of declaring war, and I am quite correct, even if it is the "technical" meaning. and like you said, we didn't declare war on afghanistan. we had troops there but it wasn't in order to attack the nation, it was in pursuit of terrorists. big difference.

people still wouldn't have waved the flags and acted patriotically if they truly didn't care, btw. but there are millions of people here who DO care, so they did.

also, as a rule of thumb, avoid making generalizations like "no one wanted to go into vietnam" because that's cutting out a lot of people who felt perhaps we should.

also, don't put words into my mouth. i never said one person couldn't get us into a war, because sure, that might be possible. i said one person can't destroy this country, and there's no way in hell you can prove me wrong there so stop twisting my words to make it so you can.

There's a big difference between saying this is a great nation and preaching nationalism. You obviously don't get that.

And I guess it's too hard for you to understand that putting troops on foreign land is an act of war. Iran hit it on the spot, we can't just send troops into their country unless we plan to fight their country. Do you really think we'd let Iraq send their troops into the US if they were only after a few terrorists living in the US? Congress doesn't have to declare war, and we don't need to declare war to fight a war.

Have you listened to LBJ's tapes? Not one advisor wanted us into Vietnam. LBJ was the only person who wanted to go there, and that's why we went. I'm not talking some one on the street wanted to go, I mean none of his advisors, none of the high ranking officials in this country wanted to go to Vietnam.

Twisting your words? First of all, I don't give a ****. Second, you did say "the president doesn't declare war, CONGRESS does." So you never said one person couldn't get us into a war? Like hell you didn't.

And DsH got that right. I always do that, that's why everyone loves me :D

MiscX

02-10-2002, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by gekko

There's a big difference between saying this is a great nation and preaching nationalism. You obviously don't get that.

And I guess it's too hard for you to understand that putting troops on foreign land is an act of war. Iran hit it on the spot, we can't just send troops into their country unless we plan to fight their country. Do you really think we'd let Iraq send their troops into the US if they were only after a few terrorists living in the US? Congress doesn't have to declare war, and we don't need to declare war to fight a war.

Have you listened to LBJ's tapes? Not one advisor wanted us into Vietnam. LBJ was the only person who wanted to go there, and that's why we went. I'm not talking some one on the street wanted to go, I mean none of his advisors, none of the high ranking officials in this country wanted to go to Vietnam.

Twisting your words? First of all, I don't give a ****. Second, you did say "the president doesn't declare war, CONGRESS does." So you never said one person couldn't get us into a war? Like hell you didn't.

And DsH got that right. I always do that, that's why everyone loves me :D

saying this is a great nation to the people of america is encouragment to believe this is a great nation, and furthermore encourages a sense of nationalism. yes, they "preach" nationalism, whether directly or indirectly.

again, it IS congress that officially declares war. also, please quote me where I said that one person couldn't get us into a war. you can't, because i didn't. i said that one person couldn't destroy this country. the president may commit acts of war but it doesn't stand as an official declaration of war in this country. congress has to declare war.

and DH is right about you putting words into people's mouths and making generalizations, right? isn't that what you said?

gekko

02-10-2002, 03:20 PM

Are you really that dumb?

"and if you think one man can destroy this country, you're dead mistaken... the president doesn't declare war, CONGRESS does."

And then you go off trying to say that congress has to officially declare war. Call it what you want, the President can get our country in a war without congress' approval.

You've been here for all of what, a day? If you want your civilized debate with politeness and politically incorrectness, go somewhere else. You just have no ****ing idea how to debate, so you go off whining about generalizations. I'll let you know when I begin to care.

MiscX

02-10-2002, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by gekko
Are you really that dumb?

"and if you think one man can destroy this country, you're dead mistaken... the president doesn't declare war, CONGRESS does."

And then you go off trying to say that congress has to officially declare war. Call it what you want, the President can get our country in a war without congress' approval.

You've been here for all of what, a day? If you want your civilized debate with politeness and politically incorrectness, go somewhere else. You just have no ****ing idea how to debate, so you go off whining about generalizations. I'll let you know when I begin to care.

::can't stop laughing at gekko's stupidity::
I know the President can get us into a war... *sigh* you're missing the point.

anyway, again, i was talking about destroying the country. try reading my posts next time.

Since i've been here only a day you feel i'm not worthy of debating with? Do you tell ALL the newbies that?

"If you want your civilized debate with politeness and politically incorrectness, go somewhere else. " I hope you know that sentence made no sense whatsoever...

I think that it is you, gekko, who don't know how to debate. I mention generalizations because anybody who DOES know how to debate knows that generalizations don't hold any ground.

and, if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted. I think you're just angry that a "newbie" is proving to be a difficult match for you.

gekko

02-10-2002, 05:24 PM

No, I just hate cocky-ass newbies who get into arguments without knowing **** about the topic.

Let see, you don't know anything about the reasoning behind Hitler's actions, yet you proceed to try to say Hitler is different from Bush. You again failed to know anything about Hitler's speeches, and still don't understand the point of nationalism. You don't know about declaring war, or about LBJ's role in Vietnam, yet you proceed to say Bush can't cause a war. Then you begin to argue over congress officially declaring war, like fighting a war changes things when congress actually calls it war.

So instead of whining about generalizations and feeling sorry for yourself, try reading a book, it might give you some intelligence, so come the next debate, you might actually be able to give a valid argument.

Ravishing Rick Rude

02-10-2002, 06:12 PM

Aye, Hitler merely took the rage of a nation and harboured it into a reason to " Get even" to what he thought was the enemy.

Although there are several theories into why Hitler hated Jewish people, Most common is that his mother died on an operating table, in which the doctor working on her was jewish..

How people can say " Well hitler was evil", yea but look at his actions At the time through the eyes of a german citizen, i can basically guarentee you would have been on his side, he promised his countrymen that he would break them out of the depression and at the same time get revenge on those who had ravaged his country for so long, which would take us back to the treaty of Versaille ( Which Gekko mentioned earlier)..

Now using that logic, nearly 99 percent of Americans love President Bush, saying that. I am in that one percent of people in north america that does not like him at all. He is using the actions on September 11th to further his popularity, he can say a few kind words about America and he has the public eating out of the palm of his hands like a bunch of mindless drones. All the while basically out raging the rest of the world while doing it, most people in the U.K and Ireland i know and have talked to do not like him or do not like what he is doing to the world. He should look at the actions of his own countrymen before starting to point fingers at the rest of the world, because * Gasp* there are terrorist groups in the USA.

Speaking of the U.S being linked to terrorism, to my knowledge they have gave weapons and funding to at least 2 terrorist groups

The Taliban, and the I.R.A.

The I.R.A alone are responsible for the deaths of over 500 British people, not to mention the Horrific Omagh Bombing in 1998, ( I was staying in a town about 30 minutes from omagh the day it happened) and did you hear about it for months in the states? hell no. Because if you did. journalists would have jumped all over the fact that the U.S was in theory responsible for that, If they hadn't have given Sinn Fein that money all those years ago, Chances are they wouldn't have started such a bloody and un-nesscecary reign of terror that has lasted in Northern Ireland and England for over 25 years.

Polaris

02-10-2002, 06:47 PM

The Ibrox Fox : About the operating table thing though, from books Ive read they have mentioned that theres evidence that hitler actually pardoned the doctor that worked on his mom. The hate of the jewish people was a deep rooted thing in German culture at the time. People always have the tendency to hate one another for being different and what not. So in the sense of hating jewish people I think Hitler was just your average individual in that sense of the hatred. He fought in the war, felt burned that they lost, and blamed the people everyone else was.

So anyway yea, reading this little argument has been quite amusing. Neither side will ever budge, so gekko and miscx you guys should just forget it....

another thing about hitler, a lot of the things he did (forget the whole genocide crap for a sec) is part of most liberal minded persons beliefs today, he pioneered gun control, his economic strategies until the war happened (remember he was semi peaceful for 6 years) was watered down socialism, workers unions and what not, social programs to help the people and all that jazz. so really in a sense/area bush is worse than hitler. you watch.. bush will cut programs like mad in the oncoming years to get rid of "big bad government"..so on the general military/presentation side of it hitler and bush coincide but otherwise theres not much parallel

gekko

02-10-2002, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by The Ibrox Fox
Speaking of the U.S being linked to terrorism, to my knowledge they have gave weapons and funding to at least 2 terrorist groups

Bush wasn't around for that. But I would've liked for him to admit that we ****ed up in the past, and have him make an effort not to support these groups again in the future. As soon as this thing blows over, if some terrorist group goes and fights Iraq, you know we will provide them with weapons. Then they will get pissed at us later, and we're in the same mess again.

We funded the Taliban, and now they're against us, and we tried to buy back some anti-aircraft weapons from them for way more than they're worth. Why the hell didn't we just think about what we were getting into beforehand, and then they wouldn't have the weapons, and we could spend our money on something more important, like education.

MiscX

02-10-2002, 07:00 PM

rather, i hate cocky-ass admins who get into arguments without knowing **** about the topic.

you think i know nothing about hitler? hahah. i'll wager anything you want that i am MUCH more educated that you are, gekko. its evident in your posts that you can't get very far without resorting to cursing and calling people idiots. you should let the validity of your arguments be the attacking force in your arguments, but alas, your arguments have no validity, and therefore fall short.

and once again, let me remind you you're arguing with phantom facts. READ MY POSTS. did i not say that the president can get us into a war? i also said he can't destroy this country, which is where I'm coming from.

Haha, ME read a book? I'd say that I have, many more than you, which is one of the reasons why I can spell "treaty of versailles" and you can't (besides the obvious intelligence differential). by the way, one of the books i've read would be "mein kampf" for your information. you DO know who wrote that, don't you?

and that, my friends, is called "bitch slapping the admin."

::waits for senseless banning::

Ravishing Rick Rude

02-10-2002, 07:05 PM

so MiscX, you are acting like Gekko is being rude for saying you don't know anything about the subject.....

Then you turn around the same thing. You are quite a hypocrite, and an ignorant one at that.

and miscx, one more thing, of what nationality are you.

gekko

02-10-2002, 07:14 PM

So if I said a bannana was like a post-it note, would you immediatly bitch becuase one is food and one is paper, or would you finish reading the post where i state they're similar because they're both yellow?

Reading through these posts, it seems very evident that you can't comprehend jack ****.

Gekko: Bush and Hitler both preach nationalism
Miscx: WTF? Bush didn't try to wipe out an entire race!
:rolleyes:

And I'm talking some books with facts, where you can gain intelligence. Reading "See Spot Run" won't help much in these debates.

MiscX

02-10-2002, 07:44 PM

lol i'm sorry that was the stupidest post i've ever seen, gekko.

i told you a book that i've read which would give insight on a social discussion like this, and then you say i'm talking about "see spot run." haha, oh, i get it, you're trying to be clever. well, you failed quite miserably. the sad thing is you would say that a post-it note and a banana are similar because they're both yellow, and I would say that even though they are yellow there's way too many differences to even call them similar or compare them. just like you comparing bush to hitler. maybe they both preach nationalism, but I'm saying the differences are so huge between those two that saying they're similar is folly.

talk about not finishing reading a post.... :rolleyes:

ibrox fox... there's a difference between hypocrisy and what I'm doing... and the fact is i'm defending myself because gekko attacked me after running out of intelligent things to say... which was immediately.

what makes me ignorant, by the way? i'd like you to back that up, because without being able to explain WHY i'm ignorant, it just makes YOU ignorant of WHY i'm ignorant.

nd finally, let me ask you what relevance my nationality has to do with this discussion....

Polaris

02-10-2002, 07:49 PM

I have a feeling though that the general hatred for bush on this board has nothing to do with his actions but rather that hes a republican. Be honest now, I mean hes not your guy now is he? So of course everything he does is irrelevant to you. We can find something wrong with any situation if we look at it right. Good and Bad, Right and Wrong, its all perception.

About the Taliban, we funded them so we wouldnt have to fight the soviets ourselves...stop the spread of communism and all that, or atleast try to. At the time it was a relevant reason to fund them. So I figure funding a stupid little faction is a lot better than causing a world war (by sending troops there) or by doing nothing at all or trying to whine at them in the UN. Looking back its easy to say they were wrong but at the time it was the best solution. With countries like Iran and Iraq though its pretty bothersome that we dealt with them. They serve no purpose and you can say we were morons for funding Iraq and Iran.

Ravishing Rick Rude

02-10-2002, 07:54 PM

Explain to you why you are ignorant?, because your attitude towards gekko was far more childish then you had accused his of being towards you.

I am sorry to burst your bubble but you aren't as intelligent as you let on. Merely because you claim to have read books and you CLAIM to be more intelligent then him, doesn't make you any smarter.

Your " I am better then you" attitude is not going to fly with me, regardless of how much you try to put your self above everyone else.

"i'll wager anything you want that i am MUCH more educated that you are, gekko"

There is a very fine line between Arrogance and ignorance, you have clearly passed it in this quote.

"one of the books i've read would be "mein kampf" for your information. you DO know who wrote that, don't you"

Wow, do you feel special that you read a book written by Hitler? I myself have never read that book, i never have any intention to, does this make me less informed?

No, that book is writted solely on his opinion of the actions following the first world war.

now i don't want to get into a war of words with you over nothing, but nationality has alot to do with it.

There is quite a difference between reading about, and living in the aftermath of the war.

Where i was born my parents and alot of there Friends are still in financial trouble because of the War.

Yugi Starwind

02-10-2002, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Shooter

Hitler.

Ditto! :p

GameKinG

02-10-2002, 08:00 PM

The only thing that scares me about any president of US is they are the most powerful person in the world...Next to congress.

Polaris

02-10-2002, 08:16 PM

Ibron Fox: where would you happen to be born? You could possibly blame the war for italy or greece's monetary situations, I have never been to either so that makes it impossible for me to start on these countries, however if it would be france england or germany id say the financial trouble created by the 2nd world war were delt with long ago and the issues spured by the cold war are more evident. My few family members in what used to be eastern germany are having issues with that somewhat, it was worse during the unification.

miscX's responses havent been the most mature, understanding mein kamf is an important part of understanding hitler and all that jazz. he very well could be more inteligent than gekko however has proven very self righteous and that sort of screws his points. the same goes for gekko in a sense too, both sides are self righteous about there beliefs. its the age old war of us versus them...be it middle class versus upper, liberal versus conservative, black versus white, axis versus allies (awesome board game btw), it will always exist. i mean we could always just say hey good debate, close the thread and forget about this crap. lets look at the good side for a bit shall we, we live in a country that has a network of machines in which we can discuss (or blatantly slam) ideas freely and really not have a care. in my mind thats totally badass. there will be something wrong with every president we ever have, its because there human, each person has all there own quirks and what not to there personality which inhibits them from acting in a way that is just to all people. if gore won all of the conservatives would be bashing how he would be handling the war. nothing is ever justified when its mainly influenced by the thought process of one man or a small group of when its suposed to represent the will of 200 million plus. so in the end i would much rather have seen UN action..the UN always seems to be a bit more unbiased with action

Ravishing Rick Rude

02-10-2002, 08:20 PM

So you say the financial issues caused by the war are solved in france?

Think again man, some businesses were completely destroyed, and owners killed ( My grandfather) and only now is my family getting better financially, some of my mates haven't found a " Cure" for there depression financially

MiscX

02-10-2002, 10:16 PM

i realize that I have come off as self-righteous so I'm sorry for that... gekko's attacking me rather than debating with me kinda put me off the edge because his attitude works against how a board should operate. sure, that's no excuse, but that's my reasoning.

reading "mein kampf" is important, by the way, for obviously having read it would give me a lot more insight into Hitler (the person we have been discussing).

also, the financial issues caused by the war were never "solved" anywhere, but that's to be expected. in theory, the countries of europe are so amassed in debt and war reparations that they could never pull out of it, but of course 'arrangements' were made to help that...

however, just to make a point, your assumptions about my intelligence are just that -- assumptions. there's no way you can say I'm not as smart as I "think" I am because i could possibly be MUCH smarter than I think I am... we'll never know. intelligence is based on a scale that is formed by each person individually...

no, i don't feel special for reading a book by hitler. however, it DOES make you less informed when you are discussing hitler and I have read a book written by him and you haven't. That much is obvious. anyway, my mentioning the book in the first place was in response to gekko's unfounded accusations that I'm uneducated.

I don't see how I was being more childish than him... he's the one who stooped to say that I was uneducated in the first place.