Wow.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Seriously, I am not the only one that sees your attempts as a very thinly veiled attempt to make the right look as stupid and partisan as you seem to think we are.

Some members of the ring wing posse in these parts engage in some very suspect logic and regurgitate talking points and do a lot of cheerleading.[/quote]

As does the left, but the free pas you continually give them is very conspicuous, wouldn’t you say? Of course not. Which kind of makes my point that you are as partisan as anyone else.

[quote]
Statements that imply a left leaning viewpoint needs a “cure” are what make you look stupid and partisan. Don’t blame me for that.[/quote]

I went ahead and bolded the part of my quote that you used to make this idiotic charge. I blame you for an absolute lack of ability to see humor when it is even red-flagged for you. Try reading comprehension lesssons instead of taking up crochet - you obviously need it.

[quote]
If some of those folks in the right wing posse would acknowledge facts or at least reasonable points of contention, such as I outline from time to time, that would do a lot to show they weren’t just fanatical partisan hacks.[/quote]

And once again you conveniently leave the left wing haters free of your little scolding. Why vroom? Do they seem to have a better grasp of the ‘facts’ (when the sudden affinity for facts, vroom?)

Once again - your “points of contention” are thinly veiled attempts at making the right look as stupid and pointless as you already think they are. Why would I do something like that? You points of contention are not objective, and are treated as the partisan bullshit they smell like.

[quote]
I go out of my way to make sure I do that from time to time, such as when applauding Bush during his acceptance of responsibility during the Katrina crisis. Most of the other folks on the left decried it as pure politics.[/quote]

So you want a medal for the fact that the President agreed with you that he fucked up? Yeah - that’s real objectivity.

[quote]
Even in the “Meeting of the Minds” thread, I’ve said I would be impressed if this was but a beginning. Most of the adamant left will not say something like that.

I don’t think you even see these things…[/quote]

I see them - just not as valiantly objective and open-minded as you seem to think they are.

Is it me or is the T-Nation clock an hour fast??

[quote]JeffR wrote:
schwarzfahrer wrote:

“Euro terrorist lovers. Off scandal. Greed of your government.
I see. You seem to have some kind of information source I lack- please enlighten me, I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about.”

I’ll step in here. The germans were the number one supplier of arms to saddams regime starting in the early 1980’s.
[/quote]

Nope, that is unproven. Your speaking out of your ass. By “the Germans” you mean some german companies, which, by the way, do nothing that american companies wouldn’t do.(Nontheless, shame on them.)
It is a bit ridiculous trying to generalize “the Germans”, who are a rather pacifistic bunch and who, for instance, discuss endlessly if it’s OK to ship weapons to Turkey. That’s something the US would never do.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
“Concerning the other reasons for going to war: You did get me wrong. I simply meant there are no good ones.”

Really? Support of terrorism, threatening our allies, trying to assassinate our former President, firing on our planes, gassing, murdering, invading, cutting of oil to further his agenda, consistently breaking the Gulf War Cease Fire agreements. Need I go on?
[/quote]
Yes, go on until you get some serious reasons. The US would never have gone to war because of such crap.
As tyrannic as Saddam was, there’s no way America would pay billions of dollars and thousands of lives because the Iraqi dictator anounced a price for Bush’s head during war or broke a cease fire agreements (which they never agreed on officially anyway).
This is my point.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Oh, as far as imminent threat goes, 911 SHOULD HAVE shown that a government who is supports terrorists (including al qaeda) and has a history of possession and use of WMD, is actively hostile to the U.S. could lead some reasonable people to assume it was an imminent threat.
[/quote]

Nope, they did not support Al Quaeda, in fact, Al Queada hated Saddam. Although, he did support palastinian terrorists-which is again no reason to start a war

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Or, you can research my posts and you may learn something.
A to B to C. It’s a relatively easy extrapolation to make.
Does anyone else enjoy it when a german comes on trying to act holier-than-thou?
You do know your own recent history?
Yes?Good?
Oh, we’ve been watching your unemployment numbers.
You might want to use your energy elsewhere.
[/quote]
Now that’s humour. Relax guy, don’t be so tense. Nobody’s gonna invade you.

[quote]danweltmann wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
In my mind the biggest selling point was what he did to Kuwait and his own people in the 90’s.

He PROVED he USED WMD. That was all we needed. We had to walk on pins and needles to gain a UN approval, which was given months earlier because of how Saddamm breached the WMD inspections mandates. Saddam hid stuff from inspectors, did not allow entry, moved shit when and inspection came etc…etc…etc.

Please, now tell me he had no WMD’s, and you’re a total idiot and/or bandwagon chump.

GB Senior should have wiped him out too, but he was too PC. We need to stop worrying about how the bleeding hearts internally and other people of the world feel about the US, and instead, go kick some ass and answer questions LATER!

There’s a good Christion, go murder 100,000 without a clue why, then ask questions LATER! Pathetic. Remember your words, when terrorists escalate this war to nuclear.[/quote]

You will remember the words when and if they do. You make no sense. Murder? No, it’s war. We certainly knew WHY we are at war now and then (Gulf) so that makes no sense either.

So based on your arguement, if we treat the terrorists with respect then all will be good, otherwise fight against them with gusto and resolve and it will result in Nuclear War?

From time to time I do put in a bit of a push against the wild left.

I don’t recall seeing you do that to someone like Jerffy, ever. If you are going to bitch at me for not going far enough, it would be nice if you went even as far.

However, it’s unfortunate that you can’t see a centrist comment as one, when it sits right in the middle and outlines the issues without actively leaning anywhere.

Anyway, go back to your hate filled vitriol. It’s accomplishing a lot… just not what you think it is.

“OK, look, we?ll give you one more chance [Saddam]. If you show a sign that you?re not going to cooperate, then we?re going to take military action, and there won?t be any intervening diplomacy either.”-Al Gore 12/16/98

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
danweltmann wrote:
There’s a good Christion, go murder 100,000 without a clue why, then ask questions LATER! Pathetic. Remember your words, when terrorists escalate this war to nuclear.

You will remember the words when and if they do. You make no sense. Murder? No, it’s war. We certainly knew WHY we are at war now and then (Gulf) so that makes no sense either.

So based on your arguement, if we treat the terrorists with respect then all will be good, otherwise fight against them with gusto and resolve and it will result in Nuclear War? [/quote]

I believe you misunderstood Dan’s intentions.
He pointed out how much credibility America has lost in the arabic states due to rushing head first to war, asking questions later…
The criminal fanatics use this for their own agenda. They manipulate the people in believing that the US, “occupying” the holy land and Iraq, “stealing” it’s recources, helping the Jews etc. is mankind’s greatest foe.
With a more gentle political approach, Dan (and others) believes, America could stabilize the region more efficiently.
Without directly facing an enemy, the agitators would have a hard time making people believe their lies. Their power would wane over time and fascistic leaders like Mahmud Ahmadinedschad wouldn’t rise to power.
But with the war and it’s atrocities (don’t get me wrong here, the war was as clean as a war could be, but damage was done nontheless) the situation could could look pretty grim in a few years.
Iraq could become a theocracy, Iran could get nuclear weapons, and who knows what else?

[quote]vroom wrote:
And once again you conveniently leave the left wing haters free of your little scolding.

From time to time I do put in a bit of a push against the wild left.

I don’t recall seeing you do that to someone like Jerffy, ever. If you are going to bitch at me for not going far enough, it would be nice if you went even as far.

However, it’s unfortunate that you can’t see a centrist comment as one, when it sits right in the middle and outlines the issues without actively leaning anywhere.

Anyway, go back to your hate filled vitriol. It’s accomplishing a lot… just not what you think it is.[/quote]

I’,m not the one bragging about how I am trying to create an objective dialogue to help people think clearly, or what ever it is you have imagined your bloviated self serving posts to be. I don’t have to be just like you to see that you are as partisan as anyone else on this board.

Show me the hate. I guess if I now dare disagree with the great thinktard, I must be filled with hate? That’s real objective of you there vroomie.

I’m not trying to accomplish anything but to call you out for the partisan hack that you pretend not to be. And, as is par for the course, you are in denial.

[quote]I’,m not the one bragging about how I am trying to create an objective dialogue to help people think clearly, or what ever it is you have imagined your bloviated self serving posts to be. I don’t have to be just like you to see that you are as partisan as anyone else on this board.

Show me the hate. I guess if I now dare disagree with the great thinktard, I must be filled with hate? That’s real objective of you there vroomie.[/quote]

I’m not bragging about anything. Thanks for that mischaracterization.

I’m not as partisan as you. The fact I lean left doesn’t mean I have to march in lockstep with the point of view of the left… and I don’t.

The hate is in the name calling and mischaracterizations. This stuff is littered in most of your posts lately, not just those concerning me.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I’,m not the one bragging about how I am trying to create an objective dialogue to help people think clearly, or what ever it is you have imagined your bloviated self serving posts to be. I don’t have to be just like you to see that you are as partisan as anyone else on this board.

Show me the hate. I guess if I now dare disagree with the great thinktard, I must be filled with hate? That’s real objective of you there vroomie.

I’m not bragging about anything. Thanks for that mischaracterization.

I’m not as partisan as you. The fact I lean left doesn’t mean I have to march in lockstep with the point of view of the left… and I don’t.

The hate is in the name calling and mischaracterizations. This stuff is littered in most of your posts lately, not just those concerning me.[/quote]

Your preoccupation with my use of language is a little disturbing, not to mention more than just a little one sided. Because I salt my posts with strong language is no indication of hate. You know this, unless you are willing to admit right here and now that you are hate filled becuase of the language you have chosen to use. My bet is you will make yet another excuse for your actions/language as well as those of your fellow left-wing hacks while still trying to score liberal hack points by callng me hate filled.

schwarzfahrer wrote:

“Nope, that is unproven. Your speaking out of your ass. By “the Germans” you mean some german companies, which, by the way, do nothing that american companies wouldn’t do.(Nontheless, shame on them.)”

I love picking on a nationalisitc german. You guys are so easy.

Ok, are you telling me that the people who own the corporations/work for the corporations aren’t german?

Are you one of those “businesses aren’t the people” kind of guy?

Oh, well, horseshit. They knew exactly what they were doing.

As for “American companies doing the same,” nice little dodge.

The fact is: germany supplied the largest number of arms to saddam’s regime. When the butcher’s bill came due for your transgressions, you hid behind the United States. Worse, you had the audacity to look down your prussian noses at us.

Shame on you.

Period.

Again, you can go ahead and look up my past posts. It’s all there with references.

“It is a bit ridiculous trying to generalize “the Germans”, who are a rather pacifistic bunch”

Really?

You must not know your history. Do you want raw numbers of killed? Do you want maimed? Do you want psychological trauma numbers?

If you say yes, then there will be MANY zeros being typed.

“and who, for instance, discuss endlessly if it’s OK to ship weapons to Turkey. That’s something the US would never do.”

Um, what?

Didn’t have the qualms about shipping tons of weapons to saddam.

Methinks your “discussions” might be part and parcel of a guilty conscience.

Nice try.

“Yes, go on until you get some serious reasons. The US would never have gone to war because of such crap.”

You have real problems. You are way off base here. Every one of those reasons are justification for war.

Imagine if the french hired hitmen to try and kill your Chancellor.

Don’t try to tell me your thugs wouldn’t be taking a leak on the eiffel tower within the week.

I know, you are “pacifist.” Given your history, you guys are probably arming to the teeth right now.

“As tyrannic as Saddam was, there’s no way America would pay billions of dollars and thousands of lives because the Iraqi dictator anounced a price for Bush’s head during war or broke a cease fire agreements (which they never agreed on officially anyway).”

You are a very foolish person. Here is The Leader of our Senate discussing the Cease fire: (please note specific dates and times.)

The cease-fire agreement obligated Iraq to accept unconditionally the voluntary destruction, removal, and rendering harmless–under international supervision–of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and all stocks of agents, and all related subsystems and components, and all research, development, support, and manufacturing facilities.

The cease-fire agreement was ratified and approved on April 3, 1991, by the U.N. Security Council in Resolution 687. That resolution, which is still in force, reaffirms all 13 of the Security Council’s earlier resolutions on Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

In a letter delivered to the Security Council on April 6, 1991, Saddam Hussein’s regime formally accepted the terms of the cease-fire without conditions. Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein has consistently and repeatedly refused to abide by his obligations to disarm under international supervision as required in the 1991 gulf war cease-fire and succeeding United Nations resolutions, and has attacked U.S. and British aircraft lawfully enforcing these obligations almost continuously since 1991."

“Nope, they did not support Al Quaeda, in fact, Al Queada hated Saddam.”

Really? How do you know so much about them?

Just wanted to make sure you are thoroughly humiliated (I know, I’m piling on)

“Last week, King Abdullah told a Saudi newspaper that the Jordanians knew Saddam to be sheltering Zarqawi in the last years of the Ba’athist reign of terror and demanded his extradition. Saddam refused to turn Zarqawi over to the Jordanians. Abdullah had been clear on that point; the Ba’athists had not claimed they could not reach him, but that they flatly refused to hand him over.”

This was from FrontPage magazine. If you care to open your mind, you can do your own search. There are so many sources you can cross reference.

Let me state it simply (for the simple): Abdullah asked saddam for zarqawi. saddam harbored zarqawi. saddam refused to turn him over for justice.

saddam and zarqawi sitting in a tree…

saddam and al qaeda K I S S I N G.

“Although, he did support palastinian terrorists-which is again no reason to start a war”

Wow, you sure do excuse saddam’s evil at every turn.

I ask you directly (again) do you support saddam? Do you support osama bin laden? Do you support the terrorists in Iraq?

Yes or no will do.

“Now that’s humour. Relax guy, don’t be so tense. Nobody’s gonna invade you.”

I was thinking of asking Bush to remove the American troops from germany. Since you guys do such a knock-up job controlling your base impulses, there is probably very little chance of another horrendous war breaking out.

JeffR

Don’t forget the Saddamm payments to palestinian suicide bombers. That’s not terrorism at all, just good clean politics and business right?

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Oh man, this is so funny. This really cracks me up.

First you speculate that IF WMD’s would be found, X wouldn’t have accepted that. IF Osama would have been found, X wouldn’t have accepted that either.

And then you point out that you don’t accept that no WMD’s nor ties with Osama were found.

You’re “satisfied” with a statement from one of the inspectors.

This is ippon right? This must be sudden death right? You’re OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION MAN ! ! !

NEXT ! ! !

Yeah man, Out of this discussion.

Ippon man totally ippon. (I hope this is a typo, as I don’t know what the fuck ippon is.)

Uh… what the fuck are you talking about anyway?

Am I not allowed to speculate? Speculation is stupid?

When exactly did I say there were no ties with Osama? Please point this out to me.

My discussion is obviously way beyond your comprehension here. [/quote]

Probably a little late with this one: Ippon means he has scored a winning point against you. It is a Karate (Japanese) term.
My sport is TKD, so I might be wrong.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I love picking on a nationalisitc german. You guys are so easy.
[/quote]
C’mon Jeff, are you drunk? Me being nationalistic? That’s absurd.
As for the weapontrade, you can’t seem to grasp that in every country there’s black sheep.
Concentrating in that matter on Iraq is absurd.
You think your country has no arm dealers who sell to dictators, right now?

As for Iraq, the Germany had had very good Connections with that country, for a long time, since we built a lot of infrastructure even before Saddam’s rise to Power. That probably made the whole deal a lot easier.
Again, I don’t say it’s OK, but it’s nonsense to make such a fuss about it.

“It is a bit ridiculous trying to generalize “the Germans”, who are a rather pacifistic bunch”

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Really? You must not know your history. Do you want raw numbers of killed? Do you want maimed? Do you want psychological trauma numbers?If you say yes, then there will be MANY zeros being typed.
[/quote]

Thank you very much, I know Germany’s history better than you, and I know that right now, it’s very peaceful.
Your clumsy way of using “historic” reference is sick. By the same way could could just say that the chinese or the russians were bloodthirsty, because they put Hitler’s death count to shame.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Didn’t have the qualms about shipping tons of weapons to saddam.
Methinks your “discussions” might be part and parcel of a guilty conscience.
Nice try.
[/quote]
Fact is, every major weapon shipment is discussed to death in Germany. Is it right? Won’t it be used unjustly?
I don’t believe America does that. Hell, it was even your government (not some black sheep companies) which provided Saddam the gas to commit the atrocities you see as reasons to wage war.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
“Yes, go on until you get some serious reasons. The US would never have gone to war because of such crap.”

You have real problems. You are way off base here. Every one of those reasons are justification for war.
Imagine if the french hired hitmen to try and kill your Chancellor.
Don’t try to tell me your thugs wouldn’t be taking a leak on the eiffel tower within the week.
[/quote]
You’re not serious. I will ignore your rassistic remarks regarding my kin, but I cannot oversee your grave mistake. If simply insults like the threat of impotent Saddam would make you wanna fight, you should go and waste half the planet: Start with North Korea, don’t they insult you the whole time?

Don’t stop till you’re in Iran, they demanded to eradicate Israel, your ally, multiple times, didn’t they? Next stop might be Saud Arabia, the No1 Al Quaeda contributor then…
You see, if you apply this logic, your GWoT would indeed be without end.
Thank God you’re not in charge.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I know, you are “pacifist.” Given your history, you guys are probably arming to the teeth right now.
[/quote]
I cannot help but laugh while I’m typing this. As if you’d know!

As for the cease-fire agreement …
Iraq did never recognise the 38 parallel, so the toothless bastards tried to shot the planes.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Let me state it simply (for the simple): Abdullah asked saddam for zarqawi. saddam harbored zarqawi. saddam refused to turn him over for justice.
saddam and zarqawi sitting in a tree…
saddam and al qaeda K I S S I N G.
[/quote]
I believe you are the simpleton here:
There’s no way Saddam would have handed Zarqawi over, even when he didn’t support Al Quaeda. If you don’t understand that, I fear you cannot grasp politics at all.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
“Although, he did support palastinian terrorists-which is again no reason to start a war”
Wow, you sure do excuse saddam’s evil at every turn.
[/quote]
How can you be so bullheadedd! I do not excuse him, I only tell you that under normal circumstances a state wouldn’t go to war because of such pussyshit. If your standards are so high you would fight a lot more countries -before hitting Iraq-

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I ask you directly (again) do you support saddam? Do you support osama bin laden? Do you support the terrorists in Iraq?
Yes or no will do.
[/quote]

Dunno, ask the strange man with the arabic accent who’s hiding in my closet, cursing your funny president all the time.

Oh, and where were you last year when you and your “right wing posse” were calling me hate filled for the very same thing? Once you’ve slapped the label on others for the exact same thing, it is only fitting that you wear it yourself.

Every time we clash it is complete bizarro pot vs kettle material. Why even bother?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
danweltmann wrote:
As for George Soros, whatever he said, here’s a pattern:
First the USS Cole, then the WTC in 1993, then 9/11. What do you need, World War Fucking Three for you to get the message about US aggression and its consequences? The Germans and the Japanese learned this lesson after the Second one.
What’s it going to take?

The Germans didn’t learn shit - even after two good old fashioned ass whoopins’. The only reason the Europe isn’t goose-stepping to and from indoctrination school right now is becasue of the U.S. stepping in and doing what the pacifist infested Western Europeans have been histrically to stupid to do - that is sniff out and stop tyranny. Europe has learned nothing from the 20th century.

For you to miss that little tid-bit of history just proves how stupid you really are. Now run along and read some more fucking Chomsky. I’m sure he will come in handy if the U.S. ever stops doing what it does, and you are forced to pray 5 times a day to a God not of you choosing. [/quote]

The US invaded Europe in 1944, by which time the Russians were closing in on Berlin. The Germans had about 300 divisions on the eastern front, maybe a fifth of that fighting the rest of the allies. The Americans showed up at the end just like in WWI, were they got into it in 1917. So much for that bit of history.

As for the Europeans learning nothing and being pacifistic, that is ignorant nonsense. They learned in the 1930’s the price of pacifism, that’s why they have the draft and modern armies. They also learned the price of war, that’s why they stopped fighting each other. They are peaceful, not pacifistic. The US had yet to learn the price of their actions.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
danweltmann wrote:
Shit man, stop watching Fox, Robertson and whatever else you’re on, and look up the definition of the word propaganda.
That war, according to article 51 of the UN charter, was a war crime.

Maybe it’s not Soros’ B.S. you are swallowing. You sound more like a daily Kos type of idiot.

Lay out GWB’s violations of Article 51. I’d love to see you can do anything other than regurgitate pro-terrorist jiz.[/quote]

Pro-terrorist?! Most terrorism in the world is conducted by military juntas against their own populations, and most of those dictatorships are on the Americans’ payroll. That makes the US the number one terrorist state, by a big margin at that. Since you support those policies, it would seem that you are the one that’s “regurgitating pro-terrorist jiz”, to use your well turned phrase.

Aside from insulting each other, I have a serious question, I’m actually curious: Where do you get your information?

Just in case you’re going to ask me the same question, here’s my answer: I like to read alternative, some call it “dissident” media, as well news from other countries, to get different perspectives. Now, everybody’s got an axe to grind, but at least getting different points of view allows me to compare, and see who’s actually referencing their statements, and who’s just making them without proof.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Euro terrorist lovers. Off scandal. Greed of your government.
I see. You seem to have some kind of information source I lack- please enlighten me, I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about.

Do you remember the ethnic uprising in France just a few weeks ago? It is a direct result of the apologist, apathetic attitude Europe has taken towards the muslem world. Within that apathy Europe has allowed islamo-fascism a foothold. To not be against this cancer of mankind is to be in favor of it.
[/quote]

The ethnic disturbances in France were the result of decades of racism against arabs in that country. If memory serves, black in the US did not take too kindly to the same kind of treatment, and reacted in the same kind of fassion. Was that being apathetic too?

Islamo-fascism is a meaningless term, btw. Fascism is a term that means roughly the government being in bed with big business, with a good dose of militarism thrown in. So, by that definition, the US system is highly fascist, since the economy is strongly directed by the governement through the military-industrial complex.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
danweltmann wrote:

Does anyone else enjoy it when a german comes on trying to act holier-than-thou?

You do know your own recent history?

Yes?

Good?

“With the likes of idiots like you around, this forum doesn’t prove much. As for grabbing a clue, read some Chomsky, maybe you’ll wake up.”

Wake up in a tree owned by the state?

No, thanks.

“This is why the world is laughing at the US,”

Laughing? Note: “germany/france/russia” are not the rest of the world.

Oh, we’ve been watching your unemployment numbers.

You might want to use your energy elsewhere.

“the recurring scare tactics over Iraq, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala, etc. Hoooooly shit, when will you smell the bullshit?”

I’m sorry, are you castigating the United States for “scare tactics?”

Shall we talk about the ABSOLUTE HORROR of your foreign policy?

“Nobody’s attacking the US, certainly no country, as for the CIA trained Osama, he’s just hitting back.”

Really? Do you get newsprint in prussia?

You might have noticed the World Trade Centers don’t exist.

Oh, do you admire osama?

“As for George Soros, whatever he said, here’s a pattern:
First the USS Cole, then the WTC in 1993, then 9/11. What do you need, World War Fucking Three for you to get the message about US aggression and its consequences?”

Do you think those attacks were justified?

“The Germans and the Japanese learned this lesson after the Second one.
What’s it going to take?”

It’s unfortunate YOU didn’t learn to recognize and deal with an aggressive dictator. The parallels between saddam and some of your past leaders are unmistakable.

JeffR

[/quote]

Though I am very fond of Germans, having met a number of them, I am actually Canadian. My last name is German because I’m Jewish.
“Wake up in a tree owned by the state?”
Chomsky is an anarchist, he’s strongly anti-state. He’s always been anti-communist.
Note: “germany/france/russia” are not the rest of the world.

Actually, I did mean the rest of the world, not just these three countries. How can the US, who spends more on the military than most of the rest of the world combined, constanly get scared over tiny thirld world countries? The answer is that fear is an excellent way to control the population, and distract them from unpopular and destructive social welfare policies.

And the only way to instill such irrational, ridiculous fear is through lies and propaganda. Since the rest of the world is not exposed to this kind of propaganda, they find it laughable when Americans believe it.

I don’t find the attacks justifiable, they were despicable terrorism. What I’m saying is they didn’t happen out of the blue. Only a racist would think that arabs are different, that they’d blow themselves up to kill “infidels”. In the real world, things happen for a reason. When a powerful country attacks a weak one, sometimes all that’s left is terrorism. And if we’re going to talk about it, I’ll repeat myself and point out that most terrorism is US sponsored state terrorism.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
danweltmann wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
In my mind the biggest selling point was what he did to Kuwait and his own people in the 90’s.

He PROVED he USED WMD. That was all we needed. We had to walk on pins and needles to gain a UN approval, which was given months earlier because of how Saddamm breached the WMD inspections mandates. Saddam hid stuff from inspectors, did not allow entry, moved shit when and inspection came etc…etc…etc.

Please, now tell me he had no WMD’s, and you’re a total idiot and/or bandwagon chump.

GB Senior should have wiped him out too, but he was too PC. We need to stop worrying about how the bleeding hearts internally and other people of the world feel about the US, and instead, go kick some ass and answer questions LATER!

There’s a good Christion, go murder 100,000 without a clue why, then ask questions LATER! Pathetic. Remember your words, when terrorists escalate this war to nuclear.

You will remember the words when and if they do. You make no sense. Murder? No, it’s war. We certainly knew WHY we are at war now and then (Gulf) so that makes no sense either.

So based on your arguement, if we treat the terrorists with respect then all will be good, otherwise fight against them with gusto and resolve and it will result in Nuclear War? [/quote]

My point is, not everyone will take US colonialism lying down, and of small scale terrorism doesn’t work, it will escalate. It’s cause and effect, and it’s important to understand the causes. As for how to treat terrorists, I’m all for hunting them down with extreme prejudice. It’s just that it won’t remove the causes, only an end to American imperialism will.