The World Turns to Bush and America

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]snipeout wrote:
My question was who we ever directly killed, not indirectly. Ok? Bay of Pigs was an indirect attack. U.S. forces (i.e. armed services) never attacked. [/quote]

What the fcsk is the difference? Does it make the dead people any less dead?

When you plan and finance something, you are DIRECTLY responsible for it.

You persistence in claiming that an order given by YOUR president and carried out by YOUR very own CIA is none of your business is impressive. I’ll go ahead and give the credit to your propaganda machine.

42

[quote]snipeout wrote:
…
Here we go with the lib personal attacks… Can’t go to long with out one of those. As for voting in MY country I’m going to vote for this countries best chance for survival. John flip flop, cut the military and homeland security budget Kerry did not offer the best protection for this country. The last time I checked my knowledge on the Bay of Pigs was not required for me to vote. You make no sense wreckeDless. Why don’t you and your “fearless” leaders in Belgium continue to do the ostrich and we’ll continue to prevent major terror attacks.

If you don’t agree with Iraq who really gives a fuck, what is your piece of shit little worthless country gonna do? Not support GWB, oooooh no, not that. My question was who we ever directly killed, not indirectly. Ok? Bay of Pigs was an indirect attack. U.S. forces (i.e. armed services) never attacked. [/quote]

You’re not getting of the hook that easily.
You voted for draft dodging, AWOLing, all hat no cattle Bush. You preferred him over a decorated war veteran because you swallowed the lies those “let’s pretend I’m a swift boat captain and I’ll lie my ass of for money” morons told you.
You can feel proud about, but it doesn’t make it right.

You thought you could ask [quote]“What Cubans have we physically killed?”[/quote]

You got your answer. There was the bay of pigs attack. And there was the bombing of the airliner.

This is your answer: [quote]My question was who we ever directly killed, not indirectly. Ok? Bay of Pigs was an indirect attack. U.S. forces (i.e. armed services) never attacked.[/quote]

So, what do you think about the 9/11 attacks? There were no official Afghani troops involved. That makes it ok?
So wtf are you doing in Afghanistan?
By your own logic, by making the distinction between official and unofficial attacks, you just blew the case for being in Afghanistan. Talking about shooting yourself in the foot.

You’re right there. I’m just saying, perhaps a little knowledge of the facts is required to make an intelligent vote.

Belgium is doing the ostrich? We have deployed troops in Afghanistan and we have committed more troops in the future. We have troops in Lebanon. We have troops in Congo. But of course, you didn’t know that. You just blast your mouth off without any actual knowledge of the facts to back that up.

That’s not a personal attack. Calling you a stupid fuck is not a personal attack when you really are a stupid fuck.
And you really are.
You know what, simply don’t answer to this unless you bring some knowledge of some facts to the table. You see, this really is win-win for me. Either you don’t answer, I win.
Or you google up some facts. Wikipedia might be a good place to get started. Then I win again. Because perhaps, just perhaps, this could be your first step in becoming an informed voter.
This could be as exciting and as important as your first step into a gym ! ! !

43

[quote]lixy wrote:
snipeout wrote:
My question was who we ever directly killed, not indirectly. Ok? Bay of Pigs was an indirect attack. U.S. forces (i.e. armed services) never attacked.

What the fcsk is the difference? Does it make the dead people any less dead?

When you plan and finance something, you are DIRECTLY responsible for it.

You persistence in claiming that an order given by YOUR president and carried out by YOUR very own CIA is none of your business is impressive. I’ll go ahead and give the credit to your propaganda machine.[/quote]

Don’t underestimate the might of sheer stupidity.

44

Belgium has less than 200 troops in Afghanistan. We are all so impressed! What are they there for, to dig latrines for the MEN who’re actually fighting?

Belgium has troops in the Congo? The former Belgian colony, where the king of Belgium raped and plundered an actual country, considering it is personal property?

Wreckless, you must truly hate America. You wave all the allegations against Mr. Bush in the air and prattle on about us voting for him. Hello? A big reason he won is that the validity of all those smears is dubious AT BEST. They’ve all been pretty much shown to be a crock. Give it up, pinhead.

Slowly, the world will realize that America is the natural leader of the free world and picked up on the Islamic threat first. These elections indicate that. We realize that the world doesn’t WANT to know about the Islamic evil at its doorstep, but we’ll lead the fight anyway. Afterall, when Muslim scum riot and try to burn down their beloved Paris, what’s a Frenchman to do?

45

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Belgium has less than 200 troops in Afghanistan. We are all so impressed! What are they there for, to dig latrines for the MEN who’re actually fighting?[/quote]

Didn’t I tell you to get your facts straight? Didn’t I?
And did you?
No siree, the teacher is to stupid to get his facts straight.
We have over 300 troops in Aghanistan and we’re raising that to around 450.
What are they doing there? I dunno, perhaps they’re coughing up their astma.

For someone who has been hiding behing his astma all his life, you sure have a lot of balls dismissing 300 people who put their lives at risk for your safety. (see, I can play that game).

Belgium has troops there to help with the peace process and the return to demcrocy. You might have heard, but you probably haven’t, that they had their first free elections in decades over there. Hurray for the Congo, and hurray for the people who helped them achieve that. And shame on those, that would be you, who dismiss that.

I don’t hate America. I hate stupid fucks like you though.

Yeah yeah yeah. Don’t hold your breath over it. On second thought, why don’t you?

46

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Afterall, when Muslim scum riot and try to burn down their beloved Paris, what’s a Frenchman to do? [/quote]

I’ve had it with your insinuations! Show us proof of your allegations or shut up.

People in the suburbs riot. Muslims don’t constitute the only population of said suburbs.

47

Here’s a nice account of the Neo-Cons miserable failure:

The best passage is from a British conservative member of parliament by the name of Matthew Parris:

“The theory that liberal values and a capitalist
system can be spread across the world by force of arms… should be tested to destruction … The president and his neoconservative court should be offered all the rope they need to hang themselves.”

48

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Belgium has less than 200 troops in Afghanistan. We are all so impressed! What are they there for, to dig latrines for the MEN who’re actually fighting?

Didn’t I tell you to get your facts straight? Didn’t I?
And did you?
No siree, the teacher is to stupid to get his facts straight.
We have over 300 troops in Aghanistan and we’re raising that to around 450.
[/quote]

Well Damn, with a whole 300, So much more impressive then 200. AND ARE YOU SHITTING ME A WHOLE 450, we might as well let you take care of the war with that huge number.(Sorry I’m not disrespecting the soldiers I’m disrespecting there government for such a half assed attempt to help).

49

I’m glad you pointed that out. Oppressing your own people is no different than oppressing other people.

But on the international scene, the US sticks out as the bully because it killed Vietnamians, Cubans and Iraqis.

China oppressing Chinese or Russia oppressing Russians draws little attention because they don’t go around bombing other countries. Tibet is another story…

Yes, gloss over Tibet because if you don’t there goes your arguement.

As far as the Russians not invading other countries, why don’t you talk to some Czechoslovakians, Hungarians, Afghans, or Chechens and see what they think.

Cubans? Who killed more Cubans, the Us or Castro and The Commies?

50

[quote]John S. wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Belgium has less than 200 troops in Afghanistan. We are all so impressed! What are they there for, to dig latrines for the MEN who’re actually fighting?

Didn’t I tell you to get your facts straight? Didn’t I?
And did you?
No siree, the teacher is to stupid to get his facts straight.
We have over 300 troops in Aghanistan and we’re raising that to around 450.

Well Damn, with a whole 300, So much more impressive then 200. AND ARE YOU SHITTING ME A WHOLE 450, we might as well let you take care of the war with that huge number.(Sorry I’m not disrespecting the soldiers I’m disrespecting there government for such a half assed attempt to help).
[/quote]

According to wikipedia, US has 1412000 Active troops, and in 2005 had stationed 17900 troops in Afghanistan. Belgium has 41000 active troops, and we’ll say the low figure is correct, 200 troops in Afghanistan.

The US is using slightly more than 1% of its forces in Afghanistan. Belgium is using .5% of its forces in Afghanistan.

Of course, if you use the 450 number, then Belgium is committing 1% of their troops to the fight as well.

It should be expected the Belgium would commit fewer forces to Afghanistan than the US, since it has a MUCH smaller military force, and therefore has to be very judicious as to where they are deployed, or risk being spread thin.

-Gendou

51

True, they don’t have as much, but he acts as tho 300 is a lot, which its not thats all I was saying.

52

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Even though many people rip on GWB (as do I), it appears that they secretly support him!

Look at all the recent elections around the world in major countries: Germany, France, Britain, Australia. They’re all going pro-American!

Together, we will smash global Islamo-Fascism, with Bush in the lead.[/quote]

Naahh, it’s just that the Bush people taught them how to rig elections.

53

Don’t worry Dickless er wreckless you can keep hiding behind name calling. If you can compare the bay of pigs to 9/11 you are fucking retarded. We funded cuban and various other latin american rebels in an attempt to overthrow despots.

Much like the ole’ USSR funded many a despot to attempt to surround the U.S. by hostiles. You conveniently forget that everything we did was a reaction to what the USSR was doing. Did you forget that the russians were engulfing nations in their form of communism in attempt to create an empire, this empire hell bent on the destruction of the US?

Afghanistan was and is a rogue islamic nation run by terrorists for terrorists. We went in to afghanistan because good old osama was finding refuge and direct support from his buddy mohamed omar.

54

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Belgium has less than 200 troops in Afghanistan. We are all so impressed! What are they there for, to dig latrines for the MEN who’re actually fighting?

Didn’t I tell you to get your facts straight? Didn’t I?
And did you?
No siree, the teacher is to stupid to get his facts straight.
We have over 300 troops in Aghanistan and we’re raising that to around 450.
What are they doing there? I dunno, perhaps they’re coughing up their astma.

For someone who has been hiding behing his astma all his life, you sure have a lot of balls dismissing 300 people who put their lives at risk for your safety. (see, I can play that game).

[/quote]

Why aren’t you with them? My asthma is an actual physical ailment. Your yellow spine is not.

55

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Afterall, when Muslim scum riot and try to burn down their beloved Paris, what’s a Frenchman to do?

I’ve had it with your insinuations! Show us proof of your allegations or shut up.

People in the suburbs riot. Muslims don’t constitute the only population of said suburbs.[/quote]

I insinuate nothing. I state facts. Said facts were all over the news not too long ago, which we all know. Why deny it?

The ‘muslim scum’ tag is from the new president of France, btw. I like him; he says it like it is.

"He explained his position on Muslim immigrants in France, saying: “Nobody has to, I repeat, live in France. But when you live in France, you respect its rules. That is to say that you are not a polygamist. … One doesn’t practice female genital mutilation on one’s daughters, one doesn’t slit the throat of the sheep, and one respects the republican rules.”

Sarko never issued an apology or entered rehab. To the contrary, he said: “I called some individuals that I refuse to call ‘youth’ by the name they deserve. … I never felt that by saying ‘scum’ I was being vulgar, hypocritical or insincere.”

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

56

[quote]gendou57 wrote:
John S. wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Belgium has less than 200 troops in Afghanistan. We are all so impressed! What are they there for, to dig latrines for the MEN who’re actually fighting?

Didn’t I tell you to get your facts straight? Didn’t I?
And did you?
No siree, the teacher is to stupid to get his facts straight.
We have over 300 troops in Aghanistan and we’re raising that to around 450.

Well Damn, with a whole 300, So much more impressive then 200. AND ARE YOU SHITTING ME A WHOLE 450, we might as well let you take care of the war with that huge number.(Sorry I’m not disrespecting the soldiers I’m disrespecting there government for such a half assed attempt to help).

According to wikipedia, US has 1412000 Active troops, and in 2005 had stationed 17900 troops in Afghanistan. Belgium has 41000 active troops, and we’ll say the low figure is correct, 200 troops in Afghanistan.

The US is using slightly more than 1% of its forces in Afghanistan. Belgium is using .5% of its forces in Afghanistan.

Of course, if you use the 450 number, then Belgium is committing 1% of their troops to the fight as well.

It should be expected the Belgium would commit fewer forces to Afghanistan than the US, since it has a MUCH smaller military force, and therefore has to be very judicious as to where they are deployed, or risk being spread thin.

-Gendou[/quote]

Good point. However, Belgium doesn’t have to police the world or have aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean to keep Iran from bombing their neighbors. All Belgium has to do is…uh…I don’t know. Maybe keep the German tourists in line?

57

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Afterall, when Muslim scum riot and try to burn down their beloved Paris, what’s a Frenchman to do?

I’ve had it with your insinuations! Show us proof of your allegations or shut up.

People in the suburbs riot. Muslims don’t constitute the only population of said suburbs.

I insinuate nothing. I state facts. Said facts were all over the news not too long ago, which we all know. Why deny it?

The ‘muslim scum’ tag is from the new president of France, btw. I like him; he says it like it is.

"He explained his position on Muslim immigrants in France, saying: “Nobody has to, I repeat, live in France. But when you live in France, you respect its rules. That is to say that you are not a polygamist. … One doesn’t practice female genital mutilation on one’s daughters, one doesn’t slit the throat of the sheep, and one respects the republican rules.”

Sarko never issued an apology or entered rehab. To the contrary, he said: “I called some individuals that I refuse to call ‘youth’ by the name they deserve. … I never felt that by saying ‘scum’ I was being vulgar, hypocritical or insincere.”

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

[/quote]

Why am I not surprised that you are now all about France because Ms. Coulter says you should be, typical.

Let’s get this straight, Sarcozy is simply not Anti-American than he is Pro-American.

Yes, his views on certain issues definitely coincide with those of the USA, and those views are a strong shift from those of Chirac who can only be described as Anti-American. But this does not mean France is going to come along and sit happily at Bush’s feet like some lapdog.

Let’s go over it shall we:

Pro-American, if you want to call it that, views of Sarcozy:

Has a stronger anti-Islamo-fascist view than Chirac ever did.

Pro-Israel.

Wants to call Russia and China out on human rights violations.

Stronger stanced against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Those are the major ones. Now, here’s where we butt heads:

Sarcozy wants us to lead the battle against global warming.

He’s against Turkey’s entrance into the EU.

Wants diplomacy, not force against Iran.

Calls Iraq a “historical error”

So yeah, I think it is a welcome change, Chirac tried to much to be a polar opposite to US policy, which is no way to base your foreign policy.

At the end of the day Sarcozy wants to fix the bad relations that France had with the US under Chirac. But at the same time he expects the US to understand that France has every right to disagree with US policy, and that this should not undermine the friendship between the two countries.

I am very curious to see what happens the first time both countries come to a disagreement over a major policy, both to see how each side reacts, and to see what the political commentators say.

58

[quote]snipeout wrote:
We funded cuban and various other latin american rebels in an attempt to overthrow despots. [/quote]

Allende was a democratically elected leader and you overthrew him to install despotic Pinochet. The list of the popular elected regimes you overthrew is very long.

Don’t take this as an offense, but you are lacking basic historical knowledge. There are plenty of uncontreversial cases which have been extensively documented in declassified documents and even presented before the International Court of Justice.

59

[quote]lixy wrote:
snipeout wrote:
We funded cuban and various other latin american rebels in an attempt to overthrow despots.

Allende was a democratically elected leader and you overthrew him to install despotic Pinochet. The list of the popular elected regimes you overthrew is very long.

Don’t take this as an offense, but you are lacking basic historical knowledge. There are plenty of uncontreversial cases which have been extensively documented in declassified documents and even presented before the International Court of Justice.[/quote]

Allende was a crook who stole from the world. He “nationalized” industry and defaulted on loans. Over 60% of the voters in Chile voted against him.

He was a miserable failure.

60

[quote]lixy wrote:
snipeout wrote:
We funded cuban and various other latin american rebels in an attempt to overthrow despots.

Allende was a democratically elected leader and you overthrew him to install despotic Pinochet. The list of the popular elected regimes you overthrew is very long.

Don’t take this as an offense, but you are lacking basic historical knowledge. There are plenty of uncontreversial cases which have been extensively documented in declassified documents and even presented before the International Court of Justice.[/quote]

I don’t take offense. I wouldn’t expect any foreigner or secular progressive (you or any one else) to understand why our government has done what it has done. Everything we have done was done with the intention of giving the US and its citizens the best chance for survival during the cold war era.

I am aware of everything the US has done. You people view things different than alot of Americans do. You want to view everything we do as black and white, in this world there are many shades of gray.

Humor me here, if Reagans arms race against the USSR hadn’t crippled their economy, how far do you think the Soviet empire would have eventually stretched? Would they have conquered all your muslim brothers or just the countries that bordered them?

What you may not realize here is that most of the stuff you keep bringing up was done to counter the Soviet sphere of influence. If you think that the Soviets weren’t doing the exact same thing to western governments you’re crazy. The Soviets just took it one step further by invading and conquering nearby nations.

When you make mention of something please don’t do so through biased eyes. As for Allende, he was on the Soviet payroll. American interests were at stake. If you take a really close look at the Allende coup you will see the CIA and Kissingers involvement were minimal.