Author Topic: Welllll GOooooood (Read 1725 times)

Horn · « **Reply #90 on:** October 01, 2002, 05:09:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ

Even if I were to concede anything in a spirit of cooperation and good feeling it still wouldnt change the fact that you and your compatriots here are advocating a dangerous and historically incorrect approach towards a dictator such as Hussein.

Back the bus up....

Dangerous and historically incorrect? Puhleeeese. When in history has one organization (UN) conducted continuous, daily over-flights of a "defeated" country? Have you noticed how much of Iraq is overflown?

Dangerous is the spewage of folks like oodie acting on incomplete info--like there WAS NO WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM found? Dangerous is a leader of a superpower who "doesn't know what else to do" -- but by Cod he's going to do it regardless of what Congress, the UN or our allies think. Yeah, brilliant.

...and who would YOU put into power once Saddam is deposed? Names? We did so well with that in Iran (remember the Shah?)--we did so well, an extremist government took control after deposing our (the US's) puppet.

dh
(oh and by the way, been voting Republican my whole adult life. Paint somebody else with your broad brush.)

Wlfgng · « **Reply #91 on:** October 01, 2002, 05:24:11 PM »

I have a really tough time (read impossible) defending a country/leader who's whole purpose in life is to destroy the United States.

In addition, how can we just 'turn the other cheek' as Iraq continues to fire shots at American pilots on a daily basis?

I'm all for fariness but this has gone too far IMO.
We blasted the hell out of Iraq in the Gulf war, backed off when 'popular world opinion' said we should... and he's still a menace and obviously doesn't abide by his 'word'.
How can we believe that this situation can be resolved by tact and diplomacy when it hasn't worked in the past ?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #92 on:** October 01, 2002, 05:37:04 PM »

I wasnt informed when appeasement became less dangerous. Thanks for the notice.

Guess what. I dont vote at all, prolly never will because it's pointless to me and I couldn't care which party is in office or who you vote for. The only thing I care about are the actual policies. So if you personally think we should appease Hussein and go soft on him then so be it. Go paint some nice peaceful watercolors with that brush, you can have bad ideas no matter which party you vote for.

And actually this particular argument has little to do with party lines anyway, even congressional democrats are upset at the two idiot representatives in Iraq... What they are doing is shameful, I hope they loose their seats soon. But I bet the Iraqi government propaganda ministry will arrange a nice pension for them.

Basically I disagree with you horn, and for some reason I'm trying hard to be civil and not insult you.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #93 on:** October 01, 2002, 05:39:11 PM »

Hey I just noticed I have passed 3000 posts!!!

midnight Target · « **Reply #94 on:** October 01, 2002, 05:40:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I can only go by what you posted MT, and to me it looked like that. .

I wrote the following re Hitler & Sadam:

Quote

If Hussein tries to annex land like Hitler did, then I say we squash him.

If Hussein attacks a sovereign nation like Hitler did, we squash him again.

If he violates a treaty Like Hitler (building up illegal forces), then we make him comply. Note the difference. If this means war, then please let it be for all the right reasons, and those reasons have not been met as of yet IMHO.

or this:

Quote

Look, if we find that Saddam is behind 9-11, or supporting terrorism with the goal of inflicting harm on US, then I say squash him like a bug!

Otherwise lets try to protect what America is all about, and quit trying to become some kind of western Taliban.

Then GRUNHERZ wrote:

Quote

I blew away your whole riducuous argument about treating him like Hitler was treated.

After which i wrote:

Quote

....snip... read what I wrote you will find that I call for NOT conceding to Saddam like we did to Hitler. Go back and read!

and I wrote:

Quote

OK, one more time for the "Learning Disabled".

If Saddam acts like Hitler we should squash him! Now read slowly so this sinks in. The "him" in that sentence is Hussien.... get it?

Can I help any further?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #95 on:** October 01, 2002, 05:57:50 PM »

Let me put it this way MT.

Your Hussein/Hitler comparison:

"If Hussein tries to annex land like Hitler did, then I say we squash him."

My problem with your argument of treating him like Hitler, as modification of your original comparsion:

If Hussein blows up Tel Aviv like Hitler invaded Poland, then I say we squash him.

Do you get it now?

bounder · « **Reply #96 on:** October 01, 2002, 06:11:12 PM »

how is blowing up tel-aviv like invading poland exactly?

Horn · « **Reply #97 on:** October 01, 2002, 06:55:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ

Guess what. I dont vote at all, prolly never will because it's pointless to me and I couldn't care which party is in office or who you vote for. The only thing I care about are the actual policies. So if you personally think we should appease Hussein and go soft on him then so be it. Go paint some nice peaceful watercolors with that brush, you can have bad ideas no matter which party you vote for.

And actually this particular argument has little to do with party lines anyway, even congressional democrats are upset at the two idiot representatives in Iraq... What they are doing is shameful, I hope they loose their seats soon. But I bet the Iraqi government propaganda ministry will arrange a nice pension for them.

Basically I disagree with you horn, and for some reason I'm trying hard to be civil and not insult you.

And I appreciate it. Especially since I erred in responding to both you and oodie in one post. You never were party oriented in your posts. Oodie was. My bad.

What those reps did over there was shameful. Not traitorous.

Having said that, I've never mentioned anywhere admitting or encouraging being "soft" or appeasing Saddam. Rather, I'm of the "let's give this full and measured thought" tribe. As I brought up before--with whom would you replace Saddam? We absolutely have a huge, sucky reputation when it comes to replacing a rogue leader with someone we like.

Let's gather the rest of the world into one big g-damn hammer and smash the twit. Together. As one loose-jointed entity. Not as a lone alpha wolf.

Pres. Bush has apparently placed his judgement above all his allies. Bottom Line? I don't want just our boys coming back in bags--let the world share in the responsibility.

dh

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #98 on:** October 01, 2002, 07:08:31 PM »

bounder:

Would we all agree that even the staunchest reasonable western proponents of peace in dealing with Iraq's dictator would shift their position if Hussein blew up Tel Aviv with a nuclear weapon?

Its the final act of agression and that even the peace crowd cannot excuse away in their effort to avoid war and continue the appeasement. For Hitler's time his invasion of Poland, now we might see it as a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.

And since the USA's main issue with Saddam is his illegal development possesion of nuclear weapons its clearly an exact parallel to pre-war Europe's main concern with Hitler, his desire for a Greater German Reich - which naturally meant expansion into and conquest of other nations like Austria, Czecokslovakia, Poland, and in the long term most importantly the Soviet Union. He was allowed to swallow up Austria and all of Czecoslovakia without major challenge, in fact we all know he was directly aided in Munich 1938 by war fearing appeasing pre-war allies in taking the first part of Czecoslovakia. Hussein's expansion is focused on acquiering WMD capabilties and each time the world community gives into him is a direct parallel to allowing Hitler to expand the borders of Germany or violate the Versailles treaty.

So in this case the invasion Poland and a possible nuclear attack on Tel Aviv are exactly analougus to each other in a comparison of Hussein and Hitler.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #99 on:** October 01, 2002, 07:27:42 PM »

horn:

Many of our common allies and others in the world community are afraid plus they know there is pretty much zero chance of a major terrorist nuclear attack on their soil because frankly they dont play a big or strong enough part in the world to really get in the way of such people and piss them off bad enough as the USA so often does. France and Germany are practically Al Qaeda Europe headquarters with their permissive immigration and political structures especialy towards radicals and extremists. Lets look at the big 5 of permenant security council and also Germany, another important country. The German Chancellor Schroder resorted to saving his carrer by whoring himself out to the anti-USA fringe. So should we count on or even want his support? France has a strange relationship with Iraq. Russia wants it's money back. China is currently equiping the Iraqi air defence system. The UK has expressed support and the US government stance is clear.

So where are we now? This is a time to be decisive and strong. Nobody pretends to know everything and thats exactly how it is during every critical moment of history. By early 1939 every reasonable person knew Hitler was up to no good, everyone know he was a conqueror and subjegator of nations. But why did they not act? They were afraid to face the reality and could only face it when Poland was attacked. As I stated before the poland for our generation of doubters, appeasers and naive peace at all cost adovocates could very well be a mushroom cloud over a major city. That is my concern. Then it will be too late.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #100 on:** October 01, 2002, 07:47:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Horn

Tool of the Emperor, indeed.

dh

And all of the above stated...

My job is doing "homework" in this region of the world. As a result of this I have learned the following things from my overseas colleagues:

1. Americans are confusing themselves. Im beginning to doubt if anyone really understands what this country stands for.

2. The rest of the world thinks we are stupid and is wondering what we are waiting for in terms of the Iraq issue.

3. Almost every country in the Middle East and Northern Africa will welcome and is waiting anxiously for a US invasion of Iraq. No one over there likes Saddam very much. Do many people in this country know that? No. Why? Because they are more concerned with "spanking" and whether or not this issue is being "politicized." The only people that hate Bin Laden and Saddam more than Americans are Muslims. Bin Laden has made life difficult for Muslims in every country and Saddam's idea of control is murdering Muslim scholars and gasing his own people.

Now sir, these are the facts. Based on your desciption quoted above Im guessing you are quick to judge a book by its cover. If you care to retort, be sure to quote something from Fox "News First" as Im sure even that will have more validity than most of the "opinionated" banter in this thread.

Homework indeed...

Thrawn · « **Reply #101 on:** October 01, 2002, 07:57:29 PM »

Can you quote any source material for any of those statements. After all that homework you must have tons.

PS: Herbert was a hack. I got tired of the series after Pocket Weazels of Dune.

PPS: We once had a "mau'dib" on this bored.

midnight Target · « **Reply #102 on:** October 01, 2002, 10:19:35 PM »

Isn't there country song called "Hello Wall".

"Hello Grun"

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #103 on:** October 01, 2002, 10:22:59 PM »

OK......

Horn · « **Reply #104 on:** October 02, 2002, 11:20:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saurdaukar

My job is doing "homework" in this region of the world. As a result of this I have learned the following things from my overseas colleagues:

1. Americans are confusing themselves. Im beginning to doubt if anyone really understands what this country stands for.

This is a fact? I'm not confused and I am an American. I know what this country stands for.

2. The rest of the world thinks we are stupid and is wondering what we are waiting for in terms of the Iraq issue.

This is a fact? The rest of the world is waiting for us to take this guy out? Really? ...and they all think we're stupid? Links/Sources, please.

3. Almost every country in the Middle East and Northern Africa will welcome and is waiting anxiously for a US invasion of Iraq.

Northern Africa? Like Col. Khadaffi's country? Welcome us? Waiting anxiously? Doubt it.

No one over there likes Saddam very much. Do many people in this country know that? No. Why? Because they are more concerned with "spanking" and whether or not this issue is being "politicized."

Wow, something I can agree with. I don't like him very much either. As to spanking and politicization, well--in the real world EVERYTHING is politicized. EVERYTHING.

The only people that hate Bin Laden and Saddam more than Americans are Muslims. Bin Laden has made life difficult for Muslims in every country and Saddam's idea of control is murdering Muslim scholars and gasing his own people.

Facts? Sounds awfully subjective to me--"All Muslims hate Bin Laden (how did he get in here?) and Saddam" is a rather sweeping generalization. Sources please.

Now sir, these are the facts. Based on your desciption quoted above Im guessing you are quick to judge a book by its cover. If you care to retort, be sure to quote something from Fox "News First" as Im sure even that will have more validity than most of the "opinionated" banter in this thread.

Sorry didn't even see one fact except perhaps the gassing of the Northern Kurds, which did happen. And a word or two about the quote "Tool of the Empire" -- it is a play on words with your incorrectly spelled BBS handle. The Sardauker were the universally feared army of the Emperors in the novel Dune. The term "Tool of the Empire" actually is a reference to the storm troopers in Star Wars. I used it referring to you becuase you seem to be able only to parrot the stance of the current administration.

Homework indeed...

I give you a "D"......

dh