quote:
Originally posted by Siplus: *Capitalist*:
why should i be ashamed? i hate the french. i find this amusing
that's my point. to be amused at somebody else's suffering is as bad as hating somebody you have never met for abstract reasons which have been made up in the heads of other people you have never met and injected intravenously into your consciousness purely for the sake of keeping your economy ticking over.
quote:
are you so sure there are no WMD in iraq? give the US time to see for sure. they have already found the 'mobile weapons labs' that they claimed iraq had
i'm not sure. to be honest if there are weapons there then i'd rather the US found them than some other group, i am just pissed of at how the US and UK (not sure about other nations) are handling the whole affair in terms of PR, it's very arrogant in my opinion to treat the mass populace as cattle, and it is infuriating to see that tactic actually working.
quote:
funny...i don't remember them saying they are going to tear up iraq. they removed sadam and his loyalists, freed the nation from tyranny (temporarily, cause i'm sure they will allow another dictator to take saddam's place eventually), and are trying to setup a new government (which is taking FOREVER).
oh yes, and in the meantime, there's a US controlled "peace" keeping "force" there. No wonder it is taking so long. have you ever heard of oil? I will be happy when the US gives Iraq back to its people with no strings attached. Then and only then will Iraq be freed from tyranny. Until that happens i will remain unconvinced that money and oil are not the prime motivators for the Iraq action.
quote:
oh, and yes, we do have WMD in USA, they are called atomic bombs. it is legal for us to have them because we don't have the entire world trying to get us to prove we have distroyed all of them.
oh right, so that's okay then. Also i have no concerns that the man responsible for the largest store of nuclear weapons known to humanity was a C student at college, only recently gave up his drink habit and has been described by Nelson Mandela (one of the most respected world leaders in this century or the last) as "a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly". (
in January 2003)
quote:
i also never heard the second quote
it's not a quote, is this your main contention? that you think these are not quotes? well put it to bed, they are not quotes. i am paraphrasing. How can the US physically be quoted as saying something? If it were a quote i would have put the name of the person who said it, and possibly a URL and the date too, as it happens i could most likely dig out very similar quotes from members of the US military, so why pursue it? As i said i am paraphrasing. Go and do your own research, you might learn something.
quote:
--where do you keep getting these from? i sure hope your not missquoting. that would be lying.
christ, are all americans this simple? (i know they are not, that was a deliberately inflammatory remark) it would not be "lying" it would be "paraphrasing". As i said i cannot be bothered to run around for quotes on the net to satisfy your obstreporousness, i am confident i could find suitable quotes, but you could do a better job yourself, since you would be more likely to believe your own results if you got involved a bit yourself.
quote:
i also find this amusing: you people (liberals, french, most of western Europe)
ho hum
quote:
kept saying 'give the inspections more time, give sadam more time, just give more time damnit.'
is that right? i sure hope you are not misquoting me because that would be lying. actually you will find if you do a search through my back posts on this forum that i always said a nice clean CIA style assasination (you know, like they did the Kennedys) of saddam hussein would be the best bet. I said the same thing about milosevic in fact.
quote:
yet now, with only a few months, you are being WORCE then we were before this 'war'.
worce (sic) in what way?
quote:
you want it NOW, and only NOW.
want what now?
quote:
hypocrits.
right. not going to bother explaining your criticisms then? i still haven't a clue what you are on about.
quote:
we waited for a LONG time before we went in, perhaps you could show the same pacience?
patience with what? what are you talking about? what is it that you think i want from you? you apparently completely misjudged my opinion before this little escapade, so i have no idea what you think my opinion is now.
quote:
that statement makes no sence. Americans make up America, so if you hate one, you have the other. are you practicing your doublethink perhaps?
no. however you have conveniently illustrated in a couple of lines exactly what i meant. what i meant was that americans are people, the USA is a big homogenous country run by a bunch of elected and unelected officials (for want of e better word). Most americans feel so secure in their "democracy" that they do not bother to vote, or if they hear that other people's votes are being miscounted or "lost" they do not mind because they know they have a "democratic" country and that nothing really bad could ever happen in america. You choose to pull the woll over your own eyes. No country is ever free unless its citizens are active in the decision making process. Your citizens are some of the most apathetic in the world, hence you are some of the least free people to ever live in a democracy.
quote:
first, give me an example of our immaturity! if we find a problem we can fix, we don't bitch about it for the next 4 decades, we FIX the problem!! NO, i DO NOT want to us to change our ways. if the rest of the world is too spineless to fix their own problems, then thank god we are here to fix them for you.
"we know best", another paraphrase there, but quite frankly i reject your opinion that you know best. Your country behaves in a stupid and selfish way because your citizens are too apathetic to make their views known. Those of you who speak about politics would rather defend your nonexistant democracy than fight to regain control of your nation. If somebody other than the US has a problem, then the US has NO JURISDICTION and should be advised that the only correct thing for them to do would be to FUCK OFF.
quote:
i'm astonished. as far as i can see, it is the liberals (or, lefties, if you so disire) trying to take our rights away. such as the gun issue: demorats want to remove our right to own a gun that is given to us in our 2ed amendment.
democrats are NOT left wing. In fact in many ways they are more right wing than your republicans.
quote:
Right-wingers are trying to assure us of our rights, and that is why i think of my self as conservative and NOT liberal: because i value freedom
conservatives only value freedom if freedom is already inherent in your nation. as i said before, you have been deluded into believing that freedom is there when i do not believe it is. Thus a conservative in such a country would actually be fighting to retain the lack of control that they do not realise has been imposed upon them. This is not pinko doublethink, but i despair of your ability to follow the reasoning past the first logical step, much less admit the possibility that it might be true.
quote:
that picture was not trying to convince you of anything. was i saying anything that you would convinced of anything with? no, you're just a dumbass. i posted that b/c i remembered that picture when someone mentioned that quote. nothing more.
and so you posting that picture proves i am a dumbass? riiiiiiiight...
quote:
hmm..you are posting bullshit. trolls post bullshit. let's put 2 and 2 together now...
hmm, what's wrong with this picture, lets see who is posting bullshit... This has lowered to pure namecalling now. i am getting bored. got anything better?
quote:
yes, he WAS trying to be respectable at first, but then our continued ramblings pissed him off. solo: i'm sorry for adding fuel to their flaming and continuing this pointless debate
oh right, so now free speech is anti american? deary me i should have shut up and lowered my eyes, sorry massa!
quote:
there is a difference between debating politics and posting bullshit.
a difference you and many others seem hard pushed to distinguish.
quote:
so you think that exposing 3-year-old children to porn, violent movies, foul language, and immoral people is not wrong?
oh do i? well for your information i do not think those things, however i DO NOT agree with censorship in any form there is a difference between exposing, pushing, selling, etc. you on the other hand want to put a gun in the hand of every criminal and a gag round the mouth of everyone you disagree with.
quote:
you have problems...censorship is not evil, but there are degrees of censorship that should never come into existence.
censorship is evil. and i do have problems, but my stance on social justice is not one of them.
quote:
yup, i don't want to talk about politics here, but i CAN NOT LET your bullshit go unchallenged. i CAN NOT STAND reading what you people post, and i must do all that i can to stop it. staying silent will not help. i admit that what i'm doing isn't either, but it is better then remaining silent.
now who's the hypocrite?
quote:
because we don't like them. we don't want them here, they don't want to be here, so we are merely suggesting something that will make both of us happy.
all of what you just said was bigoted, and bordering on racism. It completely disregarded people's ability to be individuals in their own right.
quote:
we are not goign to force them to leave. we are not goign to show upto their homes with guns and forfully kick them out of america.
is that right? check again in maybe ten years and say that.
quote:
we are suggesting and hoping they will agree to it. it would still be their choice.
give me your tired and your hungry... do you even know what that means? it means about as much as "to serve and protect".
quote:
hmm...where do i begin?
probably up your own arse, that's where you usually begin.
quote:
a speedy trial: meaning that we will not have to rott in jail for years before we are brought before a judge? is that what you mean? if that is the case, then i want a speedy trial. oh, and the death penilty: i do not want ANY portion of my taxmoney going the expenses of housing, food, clothing, health, or any other aspect of a mass murderer!!
in our country people are innocent until proven guilty. i think you will find that legally that is still the case in your country too, however different the reality may seem. Interesting how it only took a couple of dozen words for someone to become a "mass murderer". That aside, i agree that the legal system is not nearly as expedient as it should be in many cases however it seems the usual way to speed it up is to ignore some of the facts, which is the last thing you want to leave out of a "fair" trial.
quote:
why pay for them the rest of their lives? they are not contributing to society being in jail, and we can not trust them IN society, so i think they should leave our world to burn in hell, instead of rotting in jail.
who's "them"? the estimated twenty percent (and rising) of wrongly sentenced criminals who burn in your inhumane electric chairs? this is a new subject you have broached, and it is one i am in no way conclusive about, because i do not think it is my right to say yea or nay to whether to end someone else's life or not. I do see and understand most of the reasons for doing so though, given a perfect justice system.
quote:
. haha, that's stupid. but i'm sure that it is NOT enforced. if it is, you can always challenge it in court, and i'm sure that the law would be declared unconstitional
you reckon? the fact is, it's the law. go to california and find out sometime, why don't you?
quote:
no. it doesn't. not "all" other countries are undemocratic. that is not true. but we do have third-world countries like iran, sudi arabia, cuba who are all undemocratic.
but there are worlds of difference in what can be considered "democracy". Most of the world's major countries these days are one form of democracy or another. the "united" kingdom is a liberal democracy, meaning that you can do anything you like unless there is a law against it. the laws are maintained by a house of elected reprasentatives, and then passed or rejected by an unelected house. These houses are officially apointed by the queen of england who in reality has no right to an official political opinion. In reality the involvement of royalty is ludicrous in a democracy, the voting system we have hear is medieaval and insures that the majority of votes are not counted, and almost 30% of voters do not turn out at the polls anyway (our old friend apathy). I say this because other democracies are totally different. In Australia they have over 98% turnout rate at the polls, because voting is a legally enforced requirement. In Germany they have a voting system that allows everyone's vote to be counted towards an actual result. Not all democracies are fair, in fact i suspect there are not any which are fair. I don't have that much of a better idea for what else to use though as a system of government, other than to try and make our current democracies fairer for the people, rather than the administrators.
quote:
there are more corrupt organizations. think of MS, Saddam's former government, cuba, N. Korea, oh, and can't forget the biggest communist state: china
actually i almost totally agree with you here, except that china is communist in name only. human beings have an inherent greed which makes them into capitalists. i think it is unlikely that the idealogy of communism can ever be implemented for this reason.
[ June 06, 2003: Message edited by: Calum ]
