Bush has done it again

[gekko]

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]

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]

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]

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...



*runs away*

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

[Angrist]

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.

[gekko]

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

[MiscX]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.