Was that directed at me? I won't get into a long explanation of how my post had nothing to do with Nickelplate's "intellectual habits" unless you tell me it was. :smile:

---

-- midkay

Fatstrings' offhand psychoanalysis bothered me.

By the by, bridging disparities in life experience is the basis of all human communication. Insisting that we don't really understand each other is valid but destructive.

---

[Im_invisible] "I would suck a man off, but only for sustenance."

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Cassius</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Fatstrings' offhand psychoanalysis bothered me.

By the by, bridging disparities in life experience is the basis of all human communication. Insisting that we don't really understand each other is valid but destructive.

</DIV></DIV>

okay. :biggrin:
but there are some places where one side or another does not WANT to understand. What to do then?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

I think it would work better if, instead of just claiming to have "more life experience", actually stating which experiences made you so sure about your points without even bringing in the age. If it's just something you heared and people around you are talking about for all the time then that isn't a real argument. At least not better than that of the "youngsters".

I, btw have already forgotten what this thread is about while typing this.

A flame war a day keeps the doctor away.

---

''Everyone wades in s**t until they're competent enough to walk on it. Jesus style.''
Dystopia - Empires

You guys done flaming now? Can we actually discuss the article?

Joseph Lieberman, on the president's decision said:
As Americans, we can all agree that security is the most important job of a President.

I disagree. The most important job of a president is to protect America and the ideals it was founded upon, ie FREEDOM. I don't see this president doing that, I see this president doing the opposite, eroding our freedom. Say NO to unconstitutional legislation that moves us closer to a police state.

I REFUSE TO HAND OVER MY RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES AS AN AMERICAN FOR "SECURITY"

Remember, dissenting is infinitely more patriotic than waving a flag.

EDIT: I just realized this article is a satire. My post still stands though.

---

o

When another terrorist attack is carried out on one of our nation's major cities, the same group of people that are crying about their 'rights', will be crying about how Bush failed to protect us. You can't have it both ways, people. Al-Qaeda aren't dressed in red coats, they're dressed like you and me. They make phone calls like you and me. ..This is a different time from when the constitution and bill of rights were forged. Besides, the government won't learn about your constant calls to 900 numbers, they'll learn about suspected terrorists plotting to carry out attacks. If you're not making constant calls to the mideast, or someone known to have ties to terrorism, you have nothing to worry about.

Dissention is necessary when it's for the betterment of the country; and while what is actually 'betterment' is left to be discussed, dissention for the sake of dessention is just silly.

and nickel, i said it first. lol:

suck a dick, frenchy.

if people want to look back, reflect, and even grieve about the events of five years ago.. that's their decision, and their right. don't like the topic? keep your nose out of the thread.

that is all.

---

the players tried to take the field
the marching band refused to yield

French Toast said:
And you prove his point even further. Keep digging your hole Nickel.

Yeah! because if I don't agree with YOU, then I must be very stupid indeed! I can't beleive you're still in the 8th grade!! One would think you'd have skipped a few grades by now! Feck off little boy.

See what you quoted me on.

A flame war a day keeps the literacy police away.

---

Also change the texture of the dock. Docks are rarely tile. -Facepunch
As I Lay Dying

okay, whatever. Let's just get back to the real issue that this post is ABOUT.

Bewbies you beat me to it. Haha.

The only reason we have a "right to privacy" is because of the 9th amendment. The 9th amendment addresses rights of the people that are not specifically laid out elsewhere in the Constitution. Since telephone taps and internet communications are not REALLY classifiable as "search" or "Seizure," The "right to privacy" can easily, and legally, be taken away by a federal law, or a supreme court judgement.

If there's one thing I really hate about the way things are headed, it's the fact that everyone can keep track of everything I do now. Fingerprint and DNA databases piss me off.

I think we could all keep ALL our rights over here, if we weren't so scared of violating the rights of the people over there. A couple atrocities go a long way. So do nukes.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Nickelplate said:
I think we could all keep ALL our rights over here, if we weren't so scared of violating the rights of the people over there. A couple atrocities go a long way. So do nukes.

That's pretty messed up.

Indeed it is. Unfortunately, it's very true.

I think we need to decide whose rights are more important to us. This is the unfortunate decision that all conflicts come to. Back down or be the alpha wolf?

Personally, I think that backing down is the more elegant and noble way, if diplomacy fails. But elegance means nothing if the Noble are huddled in a filthy corner.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Short of exterminating every non-American on the entire planet I don't see how violating human rights will ever make us safer.

It seems to me that any sort of "alpha wolf" action does nothing but engender more hate for the US around the world, therefore increasing the number of potential terrorists. Counter-productive to say the least.

Not every non-american, per se. But maybe lots of "anti-Americans."

Thing is, we've been walking all over people for a long time, and after we stopped, people started pushing it. Nobody would've ever done the 9/11 thing in the 1950's. People were still afraid of us.

All we have to do is soak the site of every terrorist action in pigs blood to make sure the Jihadists' remains get soaked in it so they go to hell. They'll stop... trust me. No innocents need to die, we just need to make sure that the Jihadists don't trust us with thier remains.

Insane, yes. Effective, yes.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Nickel, you're sounding like you need to be checked in to an asylum. You're totally off your rocker.

If there's one thing I really hate about the way things are headed, it's the fact that everyone can keep track of everything I do now. Fingerprint and DNA databases piss me off.

So? What if that helps to catch terrorists? I don't see how that is any different than any other infringement of your basic rights.

Not every non-american, per se. But maybe lots of "anti-Americans."

Thing is, we've been walking all over people for a long time, and after we stopped, people started pushing it. Nobody would've ever done the 9/11 thing in the 1950's. People were still afraid of us.

All we have to do is soak the site of every terrorist action in pigs blood to make sure the Jihadists' remains get soaked in it so they go to hell. They'll stop... trust me. No innocents need to die, we just need to make sure that the Jihadists don't trust us with thier remains.

Insane, yes. Effective, yes.

Well, it's definitely insane, effective, not so much. It's that f**king mentality that ignorant Americans have that gets your country into s**t. 'Let's just nuke them' is such bulls**t. Why do you think people are pissed off at you? BECAUSE OF THAT MENTALITY.

People like you piss the f**k out of me because you're so ignorant and 'ra ra America!' that you don't bother to think clearly. Stop bombing everyone that disagrees with you, and actually think about the issue at hand.

'No innocents need to die'? How many terrorists have you actually killed? You went into Iraq and started blowing s**t up, and you still couldn't find Bin Laden, meanwhile you're slaughtering everyone there. All you're doing is killing innocents and pissing off the rest of the world (with the exception of Tony Blair). It's because the US decides they have the supreme right to decide how the world plays out that people want to bomb them.

You're a prime example of the ignorance and stupidity that deserves to be bombed. You are what is wrong with the world. You're not solving anything with your whackjob ideas. Your whole god damn country has had this coming for years, and frankly I think the world would be a far better and more peaceful place with less people like you.

French Toast said:
Nickel, you're sounding like you need to be checked in to an asylum. You're totally off your rocker.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<div class="quotetext">If there's one thing I really hate about the way things are headed, it's the fact that everyone can keep track of everything I do now. Fingerprint and DNA databases piss me off.

So? What if that helps to catch terrorists? I don't see how that is any different than any other infringement of your basic rights.

It's not, and maybe it DOES help catch terrorists. but what I'm saying is stop violating the rights of the victims and start violating those of the offenders.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Not every non-american, per se. But maybe lots of "anti-Americans."

Thing is, we've been walking all over people for a long time, and after we stopped, people started pushing it. Nobody would've ever done the 9/11 thing in the 1950's. People were still afraid of us.

All we have to do is soak the site of every terrorist action in pigs blood to make sure the Jihadists' remains get soaked in it so they go to hell. They'll stop... trust me. No innocents need to die, we just need to make sure that the Jihadists don't trust us with thier remains.

Insane, yes. Effective, yes.</DIV></DIV>

Well, it's definitely insane, effective, not so much. It's that f**king mentality that ignorant Americans have that gets your country into s**t. 'Let's just nuke them' is such bulls**t. Why do you think people are pissed off at you? BECAUSE OF THAT MENTALITY.

When's the last time ANYONE nuked ANYONE? Okay, everyone knows it's technically an option. Nobody does it, because nobody's that big of a dumbass. Nukes are not a REALISTIC option and just a "what-if" scenario. And Iran calls us the "great satan" because people write "nuke em" on internet bulletin boards? They need to get a life!! Nuke those bastards!

People like you piss the f**k out of me because you're so ignorant and 'ra ra America!' that you don't bother to think clearly. Stop bombing everyone that disagrees with you, and actually think about the issue at hand.

I need you to quote me next time I say "ra ra america." Not that you're a liar, but I can't remember saying that. It's true that the United States of America bombs everyone who disagrees with me. But that's because we're trying to SHARE the bombs with all those NICE, ALWAYS-CORRECT people in other countries, but we haven't figured out a good way to deliver them without having them explode.

'No innocents need to die'? How many terrorists have you actually killed? You went into Iraq and started blowing s**t up, and you still couldn't find Bin Laden, meanwhile you're slaughtering everyone there. All you're doing is killing innocents and pissing off the rest of the world (with the exception of Tony Blair). It's because the US decides they have the supreme right to decide how the world plays out that people want to bomb them.

Wow, you know a lot! Well, not really. We didn't go to Iraq to catch Bin Laden. We actually went there to get Saddam Hussein out of power and to set up a new non-corrupt government. So I suppose what you KNOW is how to spout s**t from the wrong end of your digestive tract.

You're a prime example of the ignorance and stupidity that deserves to be bombed. Your whole god damn country has had this coming for years, and frankly I think the world would be a far better and more peaceful place with less people like you.</div></div>

First it's "Stop bombing people who disagree with you" and now it's the little jewel you've written above? You've got contradiction issues, comrade.

</div>

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Actually, Frenchy is partly right. One of the reasons we went into Iraq was because of Iraq's supposed link to al-qaeda, a link that has now been proven to never have existed.

You're also forgetting about the totally c**ked up suggestion that they had WMD's.

"9/11 -> Al-qaeda -> Afghanistan" Makes some sense.

"Al-qaeda -> Afghanistan -> Iraq" Makes no sense. There's not even a tenuous connection.

And if we really wanted to just fix other countries and set up stable governments we'd go invade North Korea, and most of Africa.

I need you to quote me next time I say "ra ra america." Not that you're a liar, but I can't remember saying that. It's true that the United States of America bombs everyone who disagrees with me. But that's because we're trying to SHARE the bombs with all those NICE, ALWAYS-CORRECT people in other countries, but we haven't figured out a good way to deliver them without having them explode.

So, no counter-argument, but instead a "you never caught me saying EXACTLY that!" even though it was a sum-up of your general mentality. Oh, and a stupid joke, because that'll make everyone forget about what you should really be countering.

First it's "Stop bombing people who disagree with you" and now it's the little jewel you've written above? You've got contradiction issues, comrade.

First it was "stop bombing people that disagree with you" and now it's "you deserve to be bombed". How are those at all contradictory? 'We shouldn't bomb disagreers, but if anyone deserves it, it's you' is a totally legitimate statement. You've got problems understanding some pretty simple facts, comrade.

---

-- midkay

Oh, additionally, North Korea just did their first successful nuclear test:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Koreas-Nuclear.html?hp&ex=1160366400&en=26d0b01ae0701583&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The UN is probably writing an angry letter right now, and the US probably won't do jacks**t since there's no economic motivation. Double standards abound!

A real nuclear threat > phantom mobile WMD trucks

Yeah, that'd be too bad if the USA didn't do anything against North korea... because, well, That'd mean that we DONT bomb everyone on our s**t list. Seriously. I wish North Korea would develop nuclear weapons and pount the ever-loving s**t out of LOTS of people. And I want the USA to do NOTHING. Then everyone will be singing a different tune of "OH WHY DIDNT THE USE INTERVENE?!?!"

Midkay, When there's something remotely worth countering, I'll do it. If you say "Don't bomb disagreers" and then you say "You have a contradictory viewpoint to mine that I hate so much that it makes me wish you were bombed." it is QUITE contradictory.

AtM, Remeber that WMD does not only mean nuclear weapons. It also includes the gas that was used on the kurds. In which case they DID have them. Even if it was not a good reason to invade, it was still not as "c**ked up" as some would think.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Man. Look at Darfur.

There's so much heinous s**t going on in this world, and we only seem to care about "solving problems," or "fighting terror" in places with oil. It's really sad.

Blood < Oil.

if it was anything to be truely concerned about america would have simply finished them in its fasion. America will refuse to end up in another cold war, unless some smart ass decides to use it for a reason to boost the economy.

which might actually be good seeing as the pitiful state its in now, an arms race would be quite the boost. And yes, I said arms race, one that will be just as important as the one we had against the CCCP. although this time we have a huge head start, and will just force submission of NK by raw muscle before they can really do much.

and there probably will end up being strikes on NK in the future, if they keep bluffing the world like this.

and now I forgot what I was going to add to this thread both bashing NP and agreeing with him at the same time

Unfortunate business, Darfur. But we get criticised for "not helping" in darfur, but in Iraq we ger criticised for "bullying" and such. There really is no way to win except Isolationism. Which I'm pulling for.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

I thought you were pulling for violating the rights of anti-Americans to protect the rights of Americans?

I know I'm going to get flamed because of this, but in my view point it
could actually be a good thing that North Korea has nukes. It balances
the situation out. A balance of fear like during the cold war...

And Nickel, I said this once before and I say it again: US of A in
isolationism will starve itself. So much money and resources are
pouring into your country from the outside that it could no longer
sustain itself, if these veins were to be closed. And like everyone
knows USA revolves around capitalism pulled to extremes so it won't
happen.

It's funny how you see these 1950s propaganda films from US in some documents and the keyword is: buy! buy! buy!

Of course other goverments revolve around money and making it too, but USA is the extreme, thus it shines out from the pack.

I think it would be in the best intrest of everyone in the world that
USA would pull its act back together and stop bombing random countries
with random excuses to turn the heads away from the real problems...
And to tell the truth I don't see this happening with Bush on the lead.

"Satans greatest archievement is that he managed to convince people that he does not exist." - Unknown

---

''Everyone wades in s**t until they're competent enough to walk on it. Jesus style.''
Dystopia - Empires

Nickelplate:

It also includes the gas that was used on the kurds. In which case they DID have them. Even if it was not

Iraq used its gas weapons mainly throughout the 80's war with Iran, the
war which was funded and supplied by the American government. When it
came to justifying invasion for Iraq this time, there were no chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons in the possession of Saddam, there were
no concrete links to al-Qaeda and there were certainly no links to the
attack of 9/11.

Addicted to Morphine said:
I thought you were pulling for violating the rights of anti-Americans to protect the rights of Americans?

It would never get to that point if everyone would leave everyone else alone. ISOLATIONISM FTW.

Gwil et al: I am not sticking up for Bush and his administration's lies and everything else. Stop acting like I'm all cuddly with GW. I ain't. I don't like him, and I don't like his politics. But apart from deleted because of patriot act we can't change a thing.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Unfortunate business, Darfur. But we get criticised for "not helping" in darfur, but in Iraq we ger criticised for "bullying" and such. There really is no way to win except Isolationism. Which I'm pulling for.

I really don't want to extend the argument too much as that's just plain unhelpful, but I'm a little confused by the implied contradiction between the attitudes to Darfur and Iraq. Any chance of expanding on this?

To bring it all down to an example, if I was in the street and there was a little old lady trying to cross the road, whilst I wander along a bit further and punch a random pedestrian in the face, this is wrong on two counts. 1. I probably should have helped the old lady cross the road (bad example on this bit - Darfur is not a little old lady). 2. I shouldn't have punched the pedestrian in the face (bad example again, since Iraq is not a pedestrian, but you get the idea). The idea is that not helping in one place and "bullying" in another doesn't present a "we can't win" scenario.

America has tried isolationism before, but sadly us Europeans thought it might be an idea to try proportional representation in a country which we were taxing to hell and back, which might have possibly let a dictator in and set off WW2, which in the words of 1066 and All That was "a bad thing".

This is the really odd thing. The League of Nations failed partly because of American isolationism. The United Nations is failing partly because America is so huge (not exactly America's fault to say the least) that it dominates the UN. That seems more like a no win situation to me.

---

My site

Well, it is to an extent the USes fault. The UN explicitly told them that they were not to enter Iraq because there was no evidence to support their claims, and Bush said 'f**k off'. So... the UN 'works' when they agree with the US. Otherwise, it goes to s**t because Earth is Americas planet.

Loco, the situation is more like a group of doctors and a group of sick people who need help. The doctors all sit around and watch as the sick people get sicker. All the other doctors criticise the best-equipped doctor for not helping one sick person (darfur). And they criticise the same doctor for helping another. Iraq is like a cancer patient who needed a malignant tumor removed. All the fatass doctors are sitting around doing NOTHING but criticising the main doctor for cutting open the cancer patient.

The US can't help everyone. We have to help in such a capacity as will cause the least loss of life and greatest benefit to us as a whole.

Would you, being in charge of millions of people, and having to choose between the two, help in Darfur or in Iraq?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Help =/= Bomb to bits then put your friend in control of what's left

The idea that we're helping Iraqi's is unmitigated bulls**t.

We went in there to get oil and make money off the war. There's no denying that. We rolled in on false pretenses and the flimsy rationale that we were bringing freedom to the Iraqi's to legitimize American imperialism.

It doesn't really matter though, because Iraqi and Afghani lives are barely worth the cost of the bullets. Right? Right?

What angers me the most is that, at least where I live, it seems that no one realizes or remembers that we're fighting two wars right now, with 3,000 dead Americans in just Iraq. The only people who notice are those that have family fighting. Everyone else just goes around like its business as usual. Perhaps when the terror level goes from Bert to Ernie they wonder why there are people out there who would want to hurt us... and then they change the channel and forget about it anyway.

Addicted to Morphine said:
The idea that we're helping Iraqi's is unmitigated bulls**t.

So they didn't have a dictator that was killing them and rigging elections and whatever else he wanted?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Thing is, we've been walking all over people for a long time, and after we stopped, people started pushing it. Nobody would've ever done the 9/11 thing in the 1950's. People were still afraid of us.

I don't get it. I really don't. Why is it so difficult for Americans to see the difference between a country and a group of psychopats? You know what I often ask myself (and believe me when I say that if it really happend I would cry out of anger and sadness)?

What if some radical muslim blows up an atom bomb in NYC tomorrow?

What then? Nuclear war with Afghanistan? Pakistan? Iran? There is no country involved. All countries in the world would condemn the attack.

What then. Who to bomb "back".

This logic can be applied to the wars in the middle east and 9/11 as well. There is no country responsible. The guy could even have been a US-citizen.

AtM, Remeber that WMD does not only mean nuclear weapons. It also includes the gas that was used on the kurds. In which case they DID have them. Even if it was not a good reason to invade, it was still not as "c**ked up" as some would think.

That's pretty c**ked up. I mean come on, that's like a top-lawyer Hollywood celebrity trial. Every 15-year old watching the news could see that there was no real evidence for Weapon of Mass Killing (once it kills a million it becomes a neutral "destruction"). When I see an American news report these days that says "Iraq war was unjustified and a failure!!!" and sell it as some "new insight" it makes me laugh and sick at the same time. I would say that the American war-supporters should pay for their shortsightedness with such an important and dangerous issue but fortunately, they already do...

Unfortunate business, Darfur. But we get criticised for "not helping" in darfur, but in Iraq we ger criticised for "bullying" and such. There really is no way to win except Isolationism. Which I'm pulling for.

America gets criticised because it plays world police (read oil and communism police) and chooses its targets so poorly. They wouldn't complain if America stopped playing world police at all and invested the HUNDEREDS OF BILLIONS of military money in development aid instead.

It's like the best doctor in the world tries to cure a random flu patient with all the money there is with old and unsuccessful therapies - instead of spending the money on research for a new medication that could probably cure the flu for everyone and once and for all.

Addicted to Morphine said:
The idea that we're helping Iraqi's is unmitigated bulls**t.

So they didn't have a dictator that was killing them and rigging elections and whatever else he wanted?

But that's flawed logic. Why did the "coalition of the willing" choose
to invade Iraq to stop tyranny (which incidentally wasn't one of their primary reasons), yet stand idly by for situations like
Darfur, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, North Korea, Iran, Israel, arguably.

Just why? In invading Iraq and acting hawkish toward the Middle East,
North Korea and Africa, America has exacerbated tensions in all those
regions whilst also maintaining a massive hypocrisy in regards to
weapons development, the UN and the use of force.

I'm not going to go on a slate America fest though, because to do so is
short sighted and wrong - they have an unenviable position in acting as
leader of the free world. Unfortunately for the United States, they
have a totally misguided foreign policy as a result of kneejerk
reactions to 9/11 and are only eroding their own position. There's
something to smile about, hmm? If the USA continues on it's ruinous
road of over interventionism, they will not have a choice in being
isolationist, that decision will have been made for them.

As for the earlier posts, any intellectual merit for either side of the
argument between French Toast and yourself was wiped out when you both
started posting ill informed ignorant, arrogant and downright offensive
drivel toward each other.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

The US can't help everyone. We have to help in such a capacity as will cause the least loss of life and greatest benefit to us as a whole.

</DIV></DIV>
i'd have been quicker to agree if you'd said, "brought the greatest benefit with the least loss of life."

---

i eat paint

I can go with that, fishy.

I'm not saying that we have only good intentions, coz I know we are greedy bastards. but Oil prices have only gone UP since the war...

But i think it doesn't matter if we had bad motives to start with. I truly beleive that we ARE helping people over there. More than we are hurting them for sure. If you accidentally help someone, its still good right?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Is the current situation helping people though, particularly the US?
Invading Iraq on falsified pretenses has alienated them further from an
already distant Arab world, and has played power right into the hands
of real troublemakers like Iran and Syria. Iraq is now a "nexus for
terrorism" and a haven for religious and jihadist zealots. Iran has
ever growing influence over the Shia majority there, uses Syria as it's
puppet and passage state to support Hezbollah and Hamas, while the
United States supports Israel in defiance of all but a handful of
countries.

The U.S. Governments foreign policy in the middle east is counter
productive and directly at odds with the ideals of world peace. It
alienates and discriminates against a mostly peaceful Muslim majority
and fires the rest of the world to fall in line against it. The hawkish
Cold War minds who inhabit the Bush administration, ironically, in
trying to create the New American Century, the Pax Americana, are in
fact destroying it by applying war onto a world that is trying to move
away from it.

Addicted to Morphine said:
The idea that we're helping Iraqi's is unmitigated bulls**t.

So they didn't have a dictator that was killing them and rigging elections and whatever else he wanted?

hahah, this made me laugh.

Iraq had a 'dictator that was killing them and rigging elections and whatever else he wanted'.

The US has a president who sends his nations youth off to die under false pretenses, rigs an election after his opponent already won, and begins his campaign to infringe upon your basic rights.

Man... Saddam was a really bad dude.

Loco, the situation is more like a group of doctors and a group of sick people who need help. The doctors all sit around and watch as the sick people get sicker. All the other doctors criticise the best-equipped doctor for not helping one sick person (darfur). And they criticise the same doctor for helping another. Iraq is like a cancer patient who needed a malignant tumor removed. All the fatass doctors are sitting around doing NOTHING but criticising the main doctor for cutting open the cancer patient.
The US can't help everyone. We have to help in such a capacity as will cause the least loss of life and greatest benefit to us as a whole.
Would you, being in charge of millions of people, and having to choose between the two, help in Darfur or in Iraq?

the problem is nickel, it seems most of the people we are "helping" are yelling at us to leave them alone, thus the "war", and all it ever turned into was a big tug o' war between the "superpowers" with iraq as the rope, we outbulls**tted them to victory and now we are moving towards the decision that iran should come with the deal

French Toast said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>&#149; quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>&#149; quoting Addicted to Morphine</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>The idea that we're helping Iraqi's is unmitigated bulls**t.

So they didn't have a dictator that was killing them and rigging elections and whatever else he wanted?</DIV></DIV>

hahah, this made me laugh.

Iraq had a 'dictator that was killing them and rigging elections and whatever else he wanted'.

The US has a president who sends his nations youth off to die under false pretenses, rigs an election after his opponent already won, and begins his campaign to infringe upon your basic rights.

Man... Saddam was a really bad dude.</div></div>

Yeah, Bush is responsible for genocide. Gassing Kurds and killing the families of his political rivals. Saddam and Bush are the same guy!

Fatstrings, maybe Iran should come with the deal... They're a threat. Even if most of what Bush says is a lie, the threat of Iran is still real.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Bush is slightly more tactful in his stupidity.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

Saddam and Bush are the same guy!

</DIV></DIV>

you're getting saddam and bin laden mixed up.

---

i eat paint

I would just like to say that I have read everybody's posts in this forum, and no one mentioned a thing about the original post by Fatstrings that Bush was planning to postpone the 2008 elections. Everyone, of course, assumed it was true and began bickering back and forth about whose viewpoint was better. The fact is that the article in "The Nation" was a futuristic scenario of what the liberals in this country foresee Bush being capable of. That's it. It didn't happen, and he didn't say it. Here is the link:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/gillers

And on the previous page it also gives a short synopsis of the article stating:

<DIV class=bckt_hdln_sm>"Bush Postpones 2008 Election</DIV>
<DIV class=bckt_bdy>Stephen Gillers | In a news brief from the future, Bush continues to do whatever it takes to protect us from terror."</DIV>
<DIV class=bckt_bdy> </DIV>
<DIV class=bckt_bdy>I give some merit to the issues brought up from the first comment, but if things are taken step by step, the answers to the original question will come of light. </DIV>

Threads rarely stay on topic, and it's not always bad to let discussions progress/move where they may.

Arrow, I read it on the internet. If it agrees with what I think, then it's true!!!

Excellent.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Arrow, I read it on the internet. If it agrees with what I think, then it's true!!!
Excellent.

Seems odd you'ld put that in blue.

I understand that topics can go anywhere...that's part of learning about other people and their beliefs. I have no problem with that.

I just think that in this particular case, that topic should have been addressed from the get go if we are to be the informed, look-at-all-sides-of-the-issue citizens some of us are pretending to be.

I would just like to say that I have read everybody's posts in this
forum, and no one mentioned a thing about the original post by
Fatstrings that Bush was planning to postpone the 2008 elections.
Everyone, of course, assumed it was true and began bickering back and
forth about whose viewpoint was better.

That's not exactly true, and no, not everyone "assumed it was true". Don't assume you know what you think people assumed :razz:

You know...during the presidential elections in Romania 2 years ago,
the social-democrat candidate was showing every sign that he was about
to
win by manipulating the lower classes into voting for him. He did this via
local party representatives (for example, the local priest was a party
member), who told people who to vote for (gotta love eastern democracy).

He
also hired bus drivers to drive people around to vote for him in several locations (the so-called
"electoral tourism").
The people who figured-out that the turd was stealing the elections
gathered en-mass in front of the embassy of Congo and swore to leave for Congo if the social-democrat managed to become
president
(fortunately, it didn't happen). Shouldn't some of you be doing the
same?

[edit: post trimmed]