• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So what's this War about anyway?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oliver said:
CIA: All they have to do is to explode a dirty bomb in a big city and Bush would declare it as national emergency.
Click to expand...

And why, pray tell, would they do that? They don't particularly like Bush, you know. I know that may be hard to understand from the outside, but believe me, it's true.

Furthermore, even that task would require a whole lot of people to pull off. And not only would all of those people need to not spill the beans, but everyone that they even APPROACHED to do it would need to also keep their mouths shut. It would require, in short, a massive conspiracy. And massive conspiracies don't work.

Pakistan/China/North Korea etc.: History doesn't matter. My point is they are a bigger threat. But I tell you something: They have nuclear weapons and the US are too cowardly to intervene.
Click to expand...

Maybe we are. But so what? Unless you think we SHOULD intervene, and have an idea for HOW to intervene, that's irrelevant. And I don't think you really want us to, or have any idea for how we could. So you've got no point.

Iraq hadn't, so why bother to invade?
Click to expand...

You're really not paying any attention, are you? How many nukes did Al Qaeda have? Oh, that's right: NONE. How many WMD's did it take to pull off 9/11? Oh, that's right: NONE.

Trillion: Where does this number come from? Are you sure they did such financial damage?
Click to expand...

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/aug02/homeland.asp
"Immediately after the attacks, leading forecast services sharply revised downward their projections of economic activity. The consensus forecast for U.S. real GDP growth was instantly downgraded by 0.5 percentage points for 2001 and 1.2 percentage points for 2002. The implied projected cumulative loss in national income through the end of 2003 amounted to 5 percentage points of annual GDP, or half a trillion dollars."

Iraq is also this expensive. Now if you compare those two attacks - are you sure that's true? Of course not, because the Military Industry booms and some Politicians are getting very rich. So who cares anyway?
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? First off, I care. Secondly, military spending is not economically productive. It NEVER has been.

How to know: Oh, will I ever know if you will murder someone in the future? We should arrest you because you could probably be a threat. So this is your understanding of law and order, isn't it?
Click to expand...

This isn't cops and robbers. This is international politics. But if you want to play the analogy game, Saddam ALREADY commited such crimes, he was on parole for those crimes, and he violated the conditions of his parole. That is, indeed, all the excuse you need to haul him in.

Nazis: It's not that important how they did it.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the people they killed on their way to the top. It was VERY important, because it was a vital part of their ability to do it at all. And they weren't alone: fascists ALWAYS need to kill political opponents to rise to power.

Also it doesn't matter if you get rid of Nuclear Weapons in other countries by using diplomacy or military from the point of view that it has the same result.
Click to expand...

And the result of using diplomacy with North Korea was ZERO.

Fascism is forever descending on America, but somehow it always lands in Europe. And it's going to land there again before it lands here.
 
Pardalis said:
And completely enjoying the freedom to do so. Exactly my point.
Click to expand...
I don't know what your point is, Montreal of the Canadian political correctness fame.

I have lived in four countries and assert my freedom anywhere:

I make it.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
I would not say the Bush and Co. are full blown fascisti, they are not killing thier opponents is the streets.

There are some vauge similarities in the use of the combination of corporate money, duping the military patriots and exploitation of the populist cause. there is certainly the abuse of civil power but not at the level of the fascisiti, and the level of media control is rather amazing but again we don't quite have the killing of journalists.
...
Click to expand...
I agree.

But let's not allow this burgeoning U.S. Fascism to grow further.

It should have been crashed in U.S. in 2004.
 
Ziggurat said:
And yet, Bush made a demand for Saddam's exile before he went to war:
...
Click to expand...
And where this right wing garbage leads you and Israel, Zaggu?

To the toilet obviously.

Who is in trouble now?

You.

Not me.
 
Ion said:
Zuggy,

where does that lead you since 2003 when you supported the war and I didn't?

It leads you to the toilet.

Obviously your support to the war since 2003 and you not fighting in Iraq, that's:

toilet.
Click to expand...

And so it begins.

Fist off, a lesson in colloquial English. The expression is not "where does that lead you," it's "where does that leave you." I'll assume that this mistake is because you're not a native speaker, and not because you've got incipient Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Though there's enough independent evidence for the latter as well.

Though I am glad that you've learned since the last thrashing I gave you not to use obscenities, so you get an A for effort. Now you just need to work on adding a bit of creativity to your insults. Because honestly? "toilet" just doesn't cut it. It's short, uninteresting, and ultimately pathetic. Which is, coincidentally, what your urologist said.

See? That's how it's done. Now you try.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yeah. Because torching a building in the middle of the night is really just as difficult as getting a 19-man crew to hijack 4 large commercial airliners and plowing them into buildings, or better yet, faking such hijackings.
...
Click to expand...
How come since 2004 you are not fighting in Iraq?

Toilet Man.
 
Ion said:
And where this right wing garbage leads you and Israel, Zaggu?
Click to expand...

Are you working on some sort of new variant of Godwin's law? Because you seem to bring up Israel whenever we get into an argument, even if the argument has nothing to do with Israel. One might almost suspect you had a perverse fetish for it. You know, kind of like your fascination with goats. But that one's easier to understand, since so many people look for partners who resemble their mothers.
 
Ion said:
Toilet Man.
Click to expand...

Geeze, man, branch out already! I mean, I know you're shackled with the mental ability of a boiled cabbage (and what with your mother's fondness for licking lead paint, we all know you can't help that), but can't you get even a LITTLE more creative? Hell, just branch out even a little if you can't come up with an original idea. Here, I'll even help you:

commode, water closet, outhouse, privy, porcelain alter, the Big White Bowl, port-a-potty, the mini-pool, the swirler

Have at it, my mentally emasculated friend!
 
mr rosewater said:
Yes the U.S. has a history, but not under one leader, Saddam is directly responsibly for two wars with his neighbors, yes!
Click to expand...
Man,

you are incorrigible.

Saddam is responsible for two wars after 1992?

Wake up:

Bush is responsible for two wars after 1992 (Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003).

Not Saddam.

Saddam is responsible for 0 wars after 1992.

Bush is responsible for 2 wars after 1992.

Got that?
 
Ziggurat said:
And why, pray tell, would they do that? They don't particularly like Bush, you know. I know that may be hard to understand from the outside, but believe me, it's true.

Furthermore, even that task would require a whole lot of people to pull off. And not only would all of those people need to not spill the beans, but everyone that they even APPROACHED to do it would need to also keep their mouths shut. It would require, in short, a massive conspiracy. And massive conspiracies don't work.

Maybe we are. But so what? Unless you think we SHOULD intervene, and have an idea for HOW to intervene, that's irrelevant. And I don't think you really want us to, or have any idea for how we could. So you've got no point.

You're really not paying any attention, are you? How many nukes did Al Qaeda have? Oh, that's right: NONE. How many WMD's did it take to pull off 9/11? Oh, that's right: NONE.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/aug02/homeland.asp
"Immediately after the attacks, leading forecast services sharply revised downward their projections of economic activity. The consensus forecast for U.S. real GDP growth was instantly downgraded by 0.5 percentage points for 2001 and 1.2 percentage points for 2002. The implied projected cumulative loss in national income through the end of 2003 amounted to 5 percentage points of annual GDP, or half a trillion dollars."

What the hell are you talking about? First off, I care. Secondly, military spending is not economically productive. It NEVER has been.

This isn't cops and robbers. This is international politics. But if you want to play the analogy game, Saddam ALREADY commited such crimes, he was on parole for those crimes, and he violated the conditions of his parole. That is, indeed, all the excuse you need to haul him in.

Tell that to the people they killed on their way to the top. It was VERY important, because it was a vital part of their ability to do it at all. And they weren't alone: fascists ALWAYS need to kill political opponents to rise to power.

And the result of using diplomacy with North Korea was ZERO.

Fascism is forever descending on America, but somehow it always lands in Europe. And it's going to land there again before it lands here.
Click to expand...


CIA: Why would they do that? - I ask you why they are doing similar things in other parts of the world - for political, economic reasons and influence. And if the White House and the CIA don't like each other: We wouldn't be in Iraq, remember?

CIA "Pull off": No, it would require a small group of people and only some patriotic reasons for -lets say- national security. The National security always works to do and hide all kind of nasty things.

Attention: I know that about WMD's. The WMD argument was much better because people can be scared even more then just saying: "Saddam has something to do with 9/11".

Trillion: See? It would have been a nice idea to actually stop Al Qaida in all other countries than the ones who didn't have something to do with them. So let me sum up: Iraq isn't about Money. Iraq isn't about terrorism.

Economic: Did I say that it is good for your pocket? Think again how it works in systems that don't have security mechanisms against possible corruption:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2005/04/shnayerson200504

Saddam: So if this is all you need to catch him. Why then making things up anyway? I tell you why: Because everything else wasn't enough to convince anyone.

Nazis: So? What are the political opponents in your system? If 2 parties agree on a terrorist issue, there is no need at all to kill someone to pass things like the Patriot act -literally- over night.

Catch my drift?
 
Ion said:
Man,

you are incorrigible.

Saddam is responsible for two wars after 1992?

Wake up:

Bush is responsible for two wars afre 1992 (Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003).

Not Saddam.

Saddam is responsible for 0 wars after 1992.

Bush is responsible for 2 wars after 1992.

Got that?
Click to expand...

Please let me know when we invade Canada, and Mexico.
 
Ion said:
What's that?
Click to expand...

Let me enlighten you, oh ignorant one. Godwin's law has various (though related) formulations, but the original form was "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Another popular variant is that the first person to bring up Hitler or Nazis in an argument that doesn't involve either has lost the argument.

You bring up Israel whenever we argue. And you call me a jew. Why is that? Because you're an anti-semite. You are a worm. You are a cankerous venereal sore, whose only hope of ever experiencing physical intimacy with a woman would be to find a blind and deaf woman of easy virtue in some backwater town in Nevada.
 
Ziggurat said:
Let me enlighten you, oh ignorant one...
Click to expand...
I don't know what you can enlighten me about.

Your side of war in Iraq is losing.

And your side is whining now.

I am winning since 2003.

And you lose since 2003.

Probably even before that, since you were born a loser, a professional victim who resorts to victimhood to gain favors.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom