Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Karnak on March 13, 2003, 12:38:32 AM
-
There is a vast amount of venom being put forth on this board. People are attacking others with raw emotion and reason has fled the field. The mocking, simplistic slogans are ruling the day.
None of this is good.
Let me try to bring a rational, unemotional, flavor to this "debate".
I'll start with what I believe is happening.
1) Is this war about oil?
Yes and no. Of course it is about oil on the large scale. If it weren't for the oil in the Middle East none of the rich nations would care about it (example: Africa) and we wouldn't be there. If we weren't there we wouldn't be pissing off the lunatic religious freaks and they wouldn't be attacking us. However, I do not believe that Bush is after Iraq's oil. I believe Bush is trying to bring stability and freedom to the region. I believe that Cheney and Rumsfeld sold invading Iraq to Bush on that level, but they themselves suggested a Pax Americana starting with Iraq in 1996, I believe that Cheney and Rumsfeld are exploiting the 9-11 attack to move forward on their Pax Americana idea. I do not believe that Bush subscribes to the Pax Americana idea, at least not in the fashion of Cheney and Rumsfeld. If he does subscribe, it is to gain security for the USA.
2) Is Iraq an immenient threat to the US?
No. Iraq has been effectively contained by the US and UK lead UN sactions and inspections. Iraq has not attacked the US in the 12 years of the sanctions, nor (that I am aware of) attempted to. Hussein's primary goal is to remain alive and in power, attacking the USA directly or by proxy using terrorists is the best way for him to ensure his death.
3) Is Iraq in violation of the various UN Resolutions?
Yes. This is too clear to need an explanation.
4) Would Hussein be co-operating to the extent that he is if there weren't 200,00 American and 40,000 British troops on his borders?
No. Anybody who thinks he would be doing so is naive in the extreme.
5) Does Iraq possess WMD?
I don't know. However, I don't think this matters as they are already in breach of the UN Resolutions. I do not believe that Iraq is stupid enough to use them in anything other that a last stand.
6) Are the anti-war people afraid (myself included)?
By and large, no. They simply have different concerns. I'll eloborate shortly.
7) Are the pro-war people afraid?
By and large, no. I'll eloborate shortly.
8) Is Saddam Hussein an absolute bastard and murderer?
Yes. This cannot be rationally argued any other way.
Why I think an invasion of Iraq is a mistake
I believe that Hussein has been effectively contained for the past 12 years. I do not believe that it is worth throwing away our international Allies in order to remove a two-bit dictator from power.
Why?
We cannot effectively fight the War on Terror by ourselves. We rely on the Intelligence agencies and counter-terrorism units of our allies to cover vastly more territory that our resources can by themselves. Further our allies such as the UK, France and Russia have experience in different aspects and places of terrorism than we do. Combined we are far more effective than any one nation could be alone.
I do not believe that toppling said dictator is worth toppling our closest and most dependable ally, Tony Blair and the UK. This is not how we should treat our true friends and the USA has no truer friend than the UK.
Alienating ourselves from our allies and increasing the hatred directed at us simultaneously seems to me to be the height of folly. What do I mean? I mean that while there are homicidal/sucidal fanatics that hate us and attack us right now the majority of Middle-Easterners simply don't like and don't trust us. Invading one of their sovereign nations will convince many more of them that the lunatic fanatics are correct about us and they will join in attacking us, either directly or by providing aid.
Addressing point 6 from above, my concerns (and I believe the concerns of most anti-war people) are that we will in fact be reducing our security by attacking Iraq. I am not afraid of a war with Iraq, I am simply concerned that it will hurt our country.
Addressing point 7 from above, I believe that most pro-war people are in favor of attacking Iraq because they believe it will increase the security of our nation.
Both sides (the rational members of each side at least) have the same desire in mind, the good of our country. Both sides need to respect that and cease demonizing the other. We all want what is best for our country.
I do not see a significant downside to going along with Chirac's position that we let the Weapons Inspectors continue their work and invade when the Inspectors say that it is time to invade.
My hopes
All of that is, I think, moot. I think that we will invade shortly, perhaps with the UK, perhaps without and Saddam will be no more.
I truely hope that it goes as the Bush and Blair Administrations say it will and I truely hope that the outcome is as rosey as envisioned by the pro-war people.
I hope this because I want the best for my country.
-
I like fluffy bunnys
-
An american with common sense
-
"5) Does Iraq possess WMD?
I don't know. However, I don't think this matters as they are already in breach of the UN Resolutions. I do not believe that Iraq is stupid enough to use them in anything other that a last stand. "
You don't know if Iraq has WMD because while they acknowledged having tons of them 10 years ago and agreed to destroy them in a verifiable way, they have not. 9/11 proves that there is an international network in place which would be eager to use WMD. Hussein doesn't have to use them, just make them available to those who will. That is why his 10 years of violating UN resolutions are no longer acceptable to the US. Every week the UN delays this war, there are more opportunities for these weapons to be distributed.
The UN is useless.
ra
-
What it is about now is the will of the International Community of Nations.
There can be no doubt Hussein is in violation of the will of the International Community as expressed by the sanctions. (Note I said Hussein, not Iraq).
There can be no doubt that the International Community of Nations has repeated warned him that action would be taken over the last 12 years unless he complied.
So, admittedly due to Bush forcing the issue, this is now about whether the International Community of Nations is going to follow through on their warnings.
I'm against action by the US without the sanction of the UN Security Council. I also feel that the SC has waited far too long to deal with Hussein, so it is time.
I won't be disappointed in the least if the US gets UN SC approval to act.
I won't be disappointed in the least if the US does not get UN SC approval and the US removes all troops from the region and brings them home immediately, with a solemn pledge not to return to the region no matter what.
Following that, I'd like to see US troops immediately pulled out of Europe, including the Balkans, simultaneously recalling all forces in Korea and Japan.
Any problems that then arise can be dealt with by the UN SC in the same fashion that Hussein was handled.
Returning troops can be used here to secure the borders and inspecting the cargo coming in through the seaports.
I see no need to fight a war in Iraq without the sanction of the UN SC.
-
Guys, this thread is getting suspiciously well argumented and spoken. I think it has to be moved from the O'Club unless someone posts "Deth to Amereeka" or something like that.
Daniel
-
Leftists: We are in a rush to war.
Answer: An 11-year rush?
Leftists: Tough inspections can disarm Saddam Hussein without invading Iraq.
Answer: Years of inspections have done wonders so far.
Leftists: We should let the inspectors finish their job.
Answer: We did. They didn't. We will.
Leftists: Why fight? The Iraqi military is weaker than in 1991.
Answer: But their biological weapons and chemical weapons are much more dangerous.
Leftists: There's no proof of weapons.
Answer: We know they have 'em, we know they hide 'em, and we have tape recordings and photographs. What more is needed? An Iraqi rocket in Martin Sheen's shorts?
Leftists: If we invade, Saddam Hussein might use those weapons of mass destruction against us.
Answer: I thought you said Iraq didn't have them!
Leftists: But terrorists might attack if we invade Iraq.
Answer: Oh…so if we don't attack Iraq, terrorists will never strike again?
Leftists: We shouldn't go to war without a UN resolution.
Answer: ANOTHER resolution? What about the last 16 resolutions? Shall we use them as wallpaper? Or shall we use the same resolutions Bill Clinton used in Bosnia?
Leftists: We don't have a real declaration for war.
Answer: It's called "Joint Congressional Resolution #114."
Leftists: If North Korea has nuclear weapons, why aren't we invading them first?
Answer: First things first.
North Korea has not invaded two neighboring countries within the past two decades. Iraq did.
North Korea does not pay $20,000 in blood money to the families of terrorist murderers. Iraq does.
North Korea has not used nerve gas and mustard gas against invaded countries as well as its own citizens. It's merely starving them. Iraq HAS used poison gases.
Iraq, not North Korea, welcomes and houses Arab terrorists who despise Israel and its only ally in the world, America. There are more reasons, but these will do.
Leftists: European leaders are against the war.
Answer: The Reichstag wasn't attacked. The Grande Palace wasn't attacked. The Kremlin wasn't attacked. And the Jerry Lewis Lifetime Achievement Museum wasn't attacked. America was attacked. And besides, except for the tantrums of France, Belgium and Germany, only three European nations aren't willing to defend freedom. The entire rest of Europe is with America.
Leftists: The French don't support the war.
Answer: Oh…did they surrender already?
Leftists: Germany objects to this war.
Answer: Germany objected to Reagan's "attitude" towards the Soviet Union. Of course, they objected to our presence in 1943 as well.
Leftists: Belgians are against the war.
Answer: I can live without Waffles and ice cream.
Leftists: Russia doesn't support the war.
Answer: They are still angry over Reagan's brilliant Cold War victory.
Leftists: Polls show Europeans are against this war.
Answer: Polls show Europeans believe their freedom was achieved by endlessly debating in marvelous dining halls, conveniently forgetting their right to be pompous blowhards was granted with American blood, not fabulous wine and brie…
Leftists: We should build a coalition with our friends.
Answer: With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Leftists: What happens if we can't build a United Nations coalition?
Answer: Who cares?
Leftists: But the UN is the world's most respected governing body.
Answer: Not as respected as the US military.
Leftists: America has always waited until enemies attacked.
Answer: Now that oceans can't hold back enemies, pre-emptive war is forever a necessity.
Leftists: War will cost billions!
Answer: So…how much is YOUR city worth?
Leftists: President Bush says he's willing to violating the 1976 executive order forbidding assassinations of foreign leaders.
Answer: As soon as the ink is dry on rescinding that idiotic order, will someone please pull the trigger? The line forms to the right…
Leftists: Many Senators don't support Bush
Answer: Are you speaking of the Senators from Bordeaux?
Leftists: Tom Daschle says George Bush has a "credibility gap"
Answer: When was the last time we came to Tom Daschle for the truth???
Leftists: These problems didn't happen under Clinton.
Answer: Actually, they happened. But Clinton ignored them. Now, Bush will clean up his mess.
Leftists: But Clinton didn't start a war.
Answer: Unless his girlfriend was testifying before congress…
Leftists: Bush 1st should have taken out Hussein in '91.
Answer: That 1991 UN resolution forbade a march on Baghdad. Remember?
Leftists: Millions of peace activists are demanding we stop the war.
Answer: Millions of Iraqi's are begging for us to start the war.
Leftists: Thousands of innocents will be killed or injured.
Answer: That's a lot less than Hussein is killing right now. (Of course, there's only one man that needs to be killed…)
Leftists: Young Americans will die in battle.
Answer: Would you prefer they die in skyscrapers?
Leftists: Protesters have genuine objections to war
Answer: Just like they did in Somalia? Bosnia?
Leftists: People are coming from all over the world to act as "human shields".
Answer: Quick, hurry, before the bombs start dropping…
Leftists: This is about American Imperialism.
Answer: So which country do we own? What nation sends us their tax dollars? If America was imperialist, we'd already own the entire world. Who could stand in our way?
Leftists: This is Blood for Oil
Answer: The only blood is the Iraqi people tortured, starved and killed while Hussein builds massive palaces to hide nuclear weapons…all financed with Iraqi oil.
Leftists: This is a racist war.
Answer: America happily endorses a multi-cultural attitude towards anyone who dares to take away our freedom.Regardless of race, color or creed, we hunt them down and kill them.
Leftists: A U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is a great recruiting tool for terrorists.
Answer: Have fun recruiting people into oppressive misery as they enjoy their first taste of freedom.
Leftists: An attack on Iraq could seriously undermine and destabilize Arab nations.
Answer: Destabilize the region? Is that possible? Do you think? The sooner we topple these tlineoppressive 14th century terrorist regimes the better.
Leftists: Are we prepared for a multi-billion dollar occupation?
Answer: Were we prepared to liberate Europe and Japan in 1945? South Korea in 1953? Grenada? El Salvador? Kuwait? The Eastern Bloc? Afghanistan? Nations always love Americans when we rescue them from tyranny. The price of freedom is never free.
Leftists: Polls show Americans are more concerned about the threat from al-Qaeda than from Iraq.
Answer: It's not a war against Al Qaeda. It's not a war against Iraq. It's a war against terrorism. Anywhere we find it. One nation at a time.
Leftists: American opinion is against the war.
Answer: No, it's not. A majority of Americans want to fight now, not later.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I won't be disappointed in the least if the US does not get UN SC approvaland the US removes all troops from the region and brings them home immediately, with a solemn pledge not to return to the region no matter what.
Maybe not, but you WILL be disappointed when the prize of gasoline in the US quadruples.
-
Now that's more like it...
-
Sorry I'm late .
As an inestimable contribution to this thread :
BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH !
Now I'm going back to work ... :D
you think it's ok Daniel ?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Maybe not, but you WILL be disappointed when the prize of gasoline in the US quadruples.
Nope.
I'll change my lifestyle to accomodate that. The price of gas in Europe is about quadruple ours.... they survived.
It would probably be THE impetus needed to move technology forward on alternative fuel vehicles.
It'd be tough, but in the end, it'd probably be a good thing.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'll change my lifestyle to accomodate that.
Do you think lazs will?
-
africa has oil , but the oil companys can't find workers to drill for it, they don't want to be killed, the oil fields in sudan ( and other countrys ) are right in the middle of a war zone.
-
Having met Laz personally, I'm SURE he would.
Laz folks and my folks are the generation that grew up during the Depression. If they did that, so can I. So can he.
Gasoline wouldn't disappear, just become expensive. Like a lot of other things. I've got some 25 year old MacAllan. It's expensive. But I don't drink it every day. ;)
I'm not saying it wouldn't be tough and disruptive, but I am saying we'll come out the other side and probably be the better for the experience.
It'd sure show some of the current crybaby crowd the difference between now and truly tough times.
-
Well look at that! Ripsnort knows how to use ctrl+c and ctrl+v!
Well said, Karnak, I broadly agree with what you are saying.
-
Thanks for the comments, both for and against my position.
Rip,
Did you read what I had written, or just jump to Copy Paste routine? I'm just curious because you seem inordinantly fond of that particular piece of spin doctoring.
-
Originally posted by ra
You don't know if Iraq has WMD because while they acknowledged having tons of them 10 years ago and agreed to destroy them in a verifiable way, they have not. 9/11 proves that there is an international network in place which would be eager to use WMD. Hussein doesn't have to use them, just make them available to those who will. That is why his 10 years of violating UN resolutions are no longer acceptable to the US. Every week the UN delays this war, there are more opportunities for these weapons to be distributed.
The UN is useless.
ra
I agree with ra. (Both paragraphs) As for the UN, its father was a hamster, and its mother smelled of elderberries. I fart in its general direction.
-
Well done Karnak.
It takes conviction to write down something like that. Most of us are lazy (or perhaps weary is a better term?), and fall back on the party lines. When you put the effort into a post like this, and it is dissmissed out of hand, it really makes one wonder why they spent the effort in the first place.
I for one fall into the "it could increase our security" camp, but I understand and respect your point of view. I'm glad that you wrote this.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Thanks for the comments, both for and against my position.
Rip,
Did you read what I had written, or just jump to Copy Paste routine? I'm just curious because you seem inordinantly fond of that particular piece of spin doctoring.
I read it ,disagreed with most of it, and replied in many threads that have been discussed in this forum on the same subject. I've been just copying and pasting what I agree with lately. Your commentary was vague to me, with answer likes "I don't know" and "Yes. This is too clear to need an explanation." I felt it was poorly written arguement.
Besides our opinion will not sway anyone elses opinion.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Maybe not, but you WILL be disappointed when the prize of gasoline in the US quadruples.
Maybe that's what we need to spur the development of alternative fuels. Hydrogen powered vehicles look promising.
-
Karnak,
I'm probably on the antipodes of your stance, since the "party lines" in Spain are exactly yours. However, my opinion about war is also the opposite to yours.
Let's make myself clear, as it's something that has been very cleverly manipulated by a lot of people in my country. I am against war. Period. But the question is not wether one is against or pro war. I don't think anybody in his right mind wants war, only that some of us think that the price of a war is cheaper by a fair margin to the price of no-war. I'm talking both money and victims-wise. No-war has scarcely brought peace througout history.
War on Iraq is fought in 3 fronts, from my perspective:
a) Economic one:
Everyone tries to defend it's own interests. For me is, by far, the less relevant. For France, and it's my personal believing, the most important one. But they are clever enough to dress their position up, and discuss the war on other terms, instead of this one.
In this particular field, the question is wether is it economically clever to wage war to remove a dictator able to use Oil as a weapon. This is very cynical to answer, but I think it makes all sense, economically speaking, even if the reserves in Iraq are not profitables to exploit (as it seems to be the case).
b) Phillosophical one:
The point is wether the world is entitled to wage war to free a country's people from a dictatorship or, more widely, from an oppression regime.
I don't think there is a yes/no answer to this question. I think it's a matter of fields. There is one where there is no justification for an external intervention, when the "oppression" does not involve serious human rights violations. There is the other one where I think there is absoutely no justification NOT to intervene as, for instance, the Balcans. When you see mass murder and wide abuse of human beings, I think people supporting human rights have all the right to sack the mad dictator (and the system and people supporting him) for good. Do we have to wait to see mass murder in Iraq or by Saddam's regime? Is it not enough Saddam's track record? From my point of view, it is more than justified to intervene and remove Saddam and his people from power. Probably there are more places in the world where this must be done, but first ones first. I don't care if he decides to leave and face International Trial or If US (let's face it, nobody but US can) need to send troops there, the important thing is he and his system are out.
c) The threat one:
Is it Iraq a threat to western countries? I can concur that not immediately, in the sense that he (Saddam) has no means of directly put a bomb in any country right now. But defintely he is a threat in the medium and long run. I don't think anybody can argue against this, especially if the situation, previous to US and UK pressure, continued. I have to remember that Saddam was vowing to unilaterally decreet the end of embargo. Do you think that an embargo-less Iraq is not a threat?. How about Oil dollars as the fuel of a weapon race? Especially with trustfully providers as some western countries?.
There is another facet of the issue. If you do not effectively remove (and by means of a very expeditive action) Saddam, you are giving clues to any other dictatorship that he can play cat and mouse with the world, in the right assumption that internal divisions would render the world unite action a chimera.
As far as the "legality" of the action, and with regards to UN sanction, the UN is not a representative chamber, nor is a decission-making body. UN is the outcome of a huge world confrontation and the cold war situation. Worked good to keep us away from a nuclear holocaust in a world divided in two clear-cut groups, where the lines were precisely and neatly drawn. But that is not the situation anymore. If there is a positive consequence of the current crisis is the perception that UN, as it is now, is absolutely useless. And I am not saying that we should get rid of it, but I'm absolutely certain that failing a reform, a deep, fundamental one, the whole institution will be meaningless in a few years. I am glad that the crisis has arisen with Iraq and not, say, with China. The world is still on time to revise the UN's role and make the so badly needed improvements.
Finally, with regards to EU, I'm glad that France and Germany, most notably France, pull out the mask. They do not pretend a united federal thingy, but they want a meek group of countries to foloow up the "leaders". Let me tell you one thing. On my particular side, France has done nothing good to my country since XIV century. I have nothing to thank them but pain. They even invaded us. I don't trust French goverment (not talking about French people here) a single bit. And were French and Germany the ones breaking up the so called "European unity" by making a bold joint statement without even ask the rest of European countries. What they expected? Blind obedience of their inferior counterparties?
So let me resume my position:
First and above all, I am against war. Period.
Second, both in economical, geo-political and philosophic field I think the world is entitled to force the retirement of Saddam and his regime, even if this envolves the use of force. Even more so, I think that without the real threat of a war, Saddam's position would have never moved. So, as a consequence, you have to be ready to wage war.
Third, I am glad that the situation has rose the point about the real usefullness of UN as an institution and the absolute need of its reform.
Fourth, I'm absolutely proud of my country's decission. Both in terms of personal coherence of my president, and in terms of not bending to political and social pressure. I don't think that the average joe (like myself) can go much further than speculating on this boards as to what our country needs to do and how real is Saddam as a menace to us. We simply lack the information. So I trust my government to take the right decissions. I'm not ignoring facts, and I try to be informed as to be clear about my next voting. At the time being, I support his position, except for the information managing, and the attitude.
Sorry for the brick.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Gasoline wouldn't disappear, just become expensive. Like a lot of other things. I've got some 25 year old MacAllan. It's expensive. But I don't drink it every day. ;)
I'm not saying it wouldn't be tough and disruptive, but I am saying we'll come out the other side and probably be the better for the experience.
:rolleyes:
Fool
-
Excellent ad hominem!
Very much in character and taken for what it's worth. :D
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Well look at that! Ripsnort knows how to use ctrl+c and ctrl+v!
I bet he doesn't. I reckon he uses the edit menu. ;)
-
Toad, your so self absorbed, you'd post that stupid toejam 'ad hominem' which ironically, no one cares what it means.
You cocked off about owning rare scotch, on a topic regarding gas prices. Hello? They are impending doom for airlines. This 'war' in Iraq started months ago for U.S. airlines you dolt. No shots need be fired, my point, fool.
Your cocking off about your rare scotch is laughable while our industry collapses.
I still don't get your enthusiasm and clearly pointless posts regarding this.
-
Sorry if it's over your head Creamo.
I'm sure it will come to you eventually.
As for the airlines, you may blame the war or 9/11 or whatever you wish.
Fact remains some airlines are making money.. a very few... and those are structured in a radically different way from the dinosaurs you and I work for. The inability to adjust to a changing marketplace is killing the majors. They continue, as they have over the past 20 years, to demand that the marketplace adjust to them. Looks like the day or reckoning finally arrived.
But, I don't expect you to understand that concept either.
:D
PS: If my airline disappears, I won't. I think I'll find something to turn my hand to which will support me and mine in a sufficient way. No slashed wrists here... it's life. My brother's been with two airlines that are no longer in existence and is now watching the third self-destruct. He's still here, with other irons in the fire.
-
Gasoline wouldn't disappear, just become expensive. Like a lot of other things. I've got some 25 year old MacAllan. It's expensive.
Nope, it NEVER will.
-
I am 10Bears Whooper of Toad...
You need a hand here Creamo?
-
I've been just copying and pasting what I agree with lately.
Only 'lately'?
-
Originally posted by Creamo
You cocked off about owning rare scotch, on a topic regarding gas prices. Hello? They are impending doom for airlines. This 'war' in Iraq started months ago for U.S. airlines you dolt. No shots need be fired, my point, fool.
Creamo, don't they successfully operate privately owned airlines in some of those countries with already high gas prices? Just a matter of adjustment, sure it may be painful for a while, we'll survive. Get clue, please.
-
The only Macallan I've tried is a couple bottles of the 12 year, finished in sherry casks. Didn't care for it at first, sherry flavor was too pronounced. Although by the time I finished the bottle I was ready for another. How does it compare to the 25 yr Toad?
-
"There can be no doubt Hussein is in violation of the will of the International Community as expressed by the sanctions. (Note I said Hussein, not Iraq). "
The problem is that the IC won't impose its will on them.
-
Good post Karnak
My only concern is about the reasons for the pro- and against war people.
1.Many people who are against Iraq war are alarmed by the way Bush and his crew handelted this whole thing.
It looks to them ( me included) that Rumpsfeld, Wolfowitz and others around Bush abuse 9/11 to resuscitate an old strategy outa the late 80thies (from Wolfowitz) to gain much more influence and power for the USA at all costs. This list with 60 nations to deal with scares us. The way Rumpsfeld talked about old allies scared us.
How will they deal with their enemies if they attack friends like this ?
The way Bush jr. handels diplomacy scares us. His father was a president, is he too?
2.To be honest, i don't belive fear is the only motivation for the pro-war people.
Badly hurt pride after Vietnam and 9/11, media made panic, overreacting nationalism, and the wish to be the superiour people in this world are some others.
You can awake that kind of feelings in every nation of the world and Bush and his falcons did everything they could to make these feelings grow. Bad idea :(
Imho
Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Badly hurt pride after Vietnam and 9/11, media made panic, overreacting nationalism, and the wish to be the superiour people in this world are some others.
Idiotic. You are clueless.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
I am 10Bears Whooper of Toad...
Yeah, you're definitely a legend in your own mind.
By all means, grab a shovel and dig yourself in too.
:D
Hey, you gonna place the second wager or not? I think Wpn would love 6 months of free AH.
Well? (Or are ya too busy with that shovel?)
-
Blitz, the United States "just" (in historical terms) led the most successful defensive coalition in history to an incredibly bloodless victory when not only human freedom but continued human existence were at stake. I see no felt inadequacy among Americans that would cause us to look around for someone to beat up on.
If any side needs to be psychoanalyzed, it is the reflexive anti-Americans who prefer to support the continued reign of a murdering, lying brute over his helpless and suffering people. What about Saddam Hussein would make his government seem worthy of preservation to a believing liberal or democratic socialist?
-
Iron, I made the 12 MacAllan year old my "bar" scotch. I don't that much anyway and a bottle lasts my wife and I literally for months. Now if my old college roomate drops by, he can kill a bottle in a short evening.
Which is why I keep a bottle of 18 year old MacAllan stashed out of sight. This is a "special occasion" Scotch and I think there is a notable increase in smoothness and depth compared to the 12 year old. This is a VERY good whisky. A bottle of this easily lasts more than six or eight months.
Now, circumstances of a private nature prompted me to buy my first bottle of 25 year old MacAllan about a year ago. It is nearly half gone. It is only poured on the most cerimonial occasions. It is noticably smoother than even the 18 year old, however the depth and palate are close. The 25 is better in this regard, but not all THAT much. A truly fine drink.
-
Originally posted by ra
Idiotic. You are clueless.
Really? Your pride wasn't dammaged after 18 thirt world lunatics did such a serious attack on 2 symbols of the last remaining superpower, my namecalling friend?
Mine had been, if i was an american.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Iron, while the rest of the world is surviving despite paying much more for gasoline than we do, apparently the assumption made is that WE would all curl up into a thumb-sucking fetal ball and just die.
Cod forbid the day should come when Americans have to give up drinking a gallon of Evian in exchange for buying 3 gallons of gasoline for the same price, eh? How can we possibly survive?
The horror of drinking tap water!
Industries rise and fall all the time. I'm sure there are those who were gainfully employed making buttonhooks that experienced the feelings that some airline workers here seem to be experiencing. Likewise those who made kerosene lanterns and undboutedly lots of railway workers.
The smart industries survive and adapt. No one, to my knowledge, has ever depicted the major carriers here as "smart and adaptive". As a result, my industry is failing and my carrier will fail along with the other dinosaurs.
So, while I may be having one last drink on the bridge of the Titanic, there's not much I can do but make sure I savor the drink. But I'm not curling into a ball and crying over my fate. When the water gets up to my ankles, I'll be swimming for all I'm worth.
And I'll survive.
-
Originally posted by Rasker
If any side needs to be psychoanalyzed, it is the reflexive anti-Americans who prefer to support the continued reign of a murdering, lying brute over his helpless and suffering people. What about Saddam Hussein would make his government seem worthy of preservation to a believing liberal or democratic socialist?
"Shack!"
-
Originally posted by Rasker
Blitz, the United States "just" (in historical terms) led the most successful defensive coalition in history to an incredibly bloodless victory when not only human freedom but continued human existence were at stake. I see no felt inadequacy among Americans that would cause us to look around for someone to beat up on.
Mind you, this wasn't bloodless, cost the lives of millions of people.
Nevertheless, it had a happy end at least for you and me.
If any side needs to be psychoanalyzed, it is the reflexive anti-Americans who prefer to support the continued reign of a murdering, lying brute over his helpless and suffering people. What about Saddam Hussein would make his government seem worthy of preservation to a believing liberal or democratic socialist? [/B]
1.Pschychoanalysing of anti-Iraq war people is dayly work nowadays, at least at this board.
2.We don't support Saddam Hussein, we just try to slow down Bush and his warmongeres.
3. Nobody wants Saddam alive and his regime survive
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Really? Your pride wasn't dammaged after 18 third world lunatics did such a serious attack on 2 symbols of the last remaining superpower, my namecalling friend?
You are still an idiot. Why would pride be hurt by the WTC attack? It was not like losing an Olympic basketball game to Bulgaria. It was much more serious, but you are an idiot and don't see that.
And you bring Vietnam into the current situation, and say that America wants to be superior? Vietnam is ancient history. This war will cost American lives and wealth, it has nothing to do with superiority over other nations. Perhaps you feel inferior?
While certain European countries aggressively do everything they can to make this war as costly as possible to the U.S., they piously claim that the U.S. is out of control and that "peace" should be maintained at all costs. Europe is led by empty shirt bureaucrats who can't step up to the challenges of the current situation.
And after Iraq, the U.S. gets to prove its superiority over the rest of the world by handling North Korea. Bite me.
ra
-
Once someone brings up Vietnam, mentions pride and starts clamoring about superiority, they have lost any argument they could of possibly put forth.
Not that they had a sane or well thought out argument that was their own to begin with.
-SW
-
Just clearafying the "Gasprize of Europe".
Actully its the same as US, they just added some tax to it, LOADS OF TAX!
Crabofix
-
Originally posted by ra
You are still an idiot. Why would pride be hurt by the WTC attack? It was not like losing an Olympic basketball game to Bulgaria. It was much more serious, but you are an idiot and don't see that.
Your reaction would show shows me if i wasn't convinced by now, my pride friend.
And you bring Vietnam into the current situation, and say that America wants to be superior? Vietnam is ancient history. This war will cost American lives and wealth, it has nothing to do with superiority over other nations. Perhaps you feel inferior?
Vietnam war is still vivid and it was the only war USA lost so far.
Little thirth world country against a Superpower.
In my eyes 9/11 fits very in this line as it was the second time you lost to a non adequate enemy.
USA never saw a war on it's own teritory and this horrible and criminal attack at 9/11 caused a lot of emotions. Fear, anger, confusion and the others i mentioned above.
Many americans seems to feel superior, read all the posts on this bbs and you' know all about it.
While certain European countries aggressively do everything they can to make this war as costly as possible to the U.S., they piously claim that the U.S. is out of control and that "peace" should be maintained at all costs. Europe is led by empty shirt bureaucrats who can't step up to the challenges of the current situation.
And after Iraq, the U.S. gets to prove its superiority over the rest of the world by handling North Korea. Bite me.
ra [/B]
Out of control? YES, in same terms (diplomacy, language) US is out of control as it looks like. Please read what Bush Sr. has to tell about it.
NK? Hope, GWB learned something from this Iraq disaster.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
Vietnam war is still vivid and it was the only war USA lost so far.
Little thirth world country against a Superpower.
Using this logic, I could say the only reason Germany is opposed to any US-British action in Iraq is because we kicked the toejam out of them in two world wars.
In my eyes 9/11 fits very in this line as it was the second time you lost to a non adequate enemy.
We haven't lost anything yet, the war the gutless attacks on the world trade towers started is far from over. They've accomplished only one goal, to piss us off and ensure that they and their ilk will be wiped from the face of the earth without any remorse.
-SW
-
Blitz, you understand America about as well as a buffalo understands scuba diving.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Using this logic, I could say the only reason Germany is opposed to any US-British action in Iraq is because we kicked the toejam out of them in two world wars.
Looks like this is what some on this board thinking anyways.
In my eyes 9/11 fits very in this line as it was the second time you lost to a non adequate enemy.[/B]
It's just my opinion.
We haven't lost anything yet, the war the gutless attacks on the world trade towers started is far from over. They've accomplished only one goal, to piss us off and ensure that they and their ilk will be wiped from the face of the earth without any remorse.
-SW [/B]
You lost 3000 innocent people and a symbol of America.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by ra
Blitz, you understand America about as well as a buffalo understands scuba diving.
That's not false: OL' Europe has a hard time understanding their old big buddy from overseas nowadays.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Maybe not, but you WILL be disappointed when the prize of gasoline in the US quadruples
If any of you read my post about two weeks ago about hydrogen power, this quote above would be a thing of the past.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79894&highlight=hydrogen
The time is now for hydrogen power. The use of hydrogen power would negate a lot of terrorists and people like Saddam's money base. Without oil, what would they use for income. The U.S. is on the verge of an energy revolution that would change the world's politics and pollution concerns. Hydrogen produces water vapor, not carbon dioxide.
How does this relate to this thread? If you can't figure it out, then you need to dig a little deeper. Let's get "unstuck" from this oil quagmire. It's time for the world to grow up and do what's right.
:)
-
Toad, thanks for the info on the Macallan. Think I'll pick up a bottle of the 18 yr next time a special occasion comes along.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
We haven't lost anything yet, the war the gutless attacks on the world trade towers started is far from over. They've accomplished only one goal, to piss us off and ensure that they and their ilk will be wiped from the face of the earth without any remorse.
-SW
SW,
Don't argue with Blitz about losing. He and his countrymen know a thing or two about it.
-
Originally posted by blitz
2.We don't support Saddam Hussein, we just try to slow down Bush and his warmongeres.
3. Nobody wants Saddam alive and his regime survive
Regards Blitz
He's not yet the equal of Boroda in entertainment value, but he's climbing the chart.
Maybe a good fairy will come and depose Saddam with a wave of her wand? Ya think? If we all hold hands and wish really, really hard?
-
2stony,
When you figure out a cheap way to get hydrogen in a useable form please let us know.
-
who gives a toejam?
Like we as individuales can do anything about it.
-
Originally posted by blitz
, overreacting nationalism, and the wish to be the superiour people in this world are some others.
Blitz
The Germans do know something about this to be sure.
Stringer
-
Fair enough Ripsnort, but I had thought better of you than to think that you would subscribe to a simplistic distortion. Disagree with those against the war, yes, but I would have hoped that you could see and respect the reasons that we oppose it.
Your response did not address any of my main concerns, not one.
-
This has been quite a good thread. I think Pepe's post was the best.
My thoughts entirely.
Mr. Toad! I didn't mind your minor digression into 25 year old MacAllan - can't think why Creamo saw fit to be so rude. I know you would like to treat the current campaign as a "Missed Approach", and come back around in 6 months for another landing attempt. I don't think that's feasible at all. The time for negotiations ended when Saddam failed to comply with UN Resolutions when renewed demands were made by Dubya. On the day that forces began to be deployed to the Gulf, that day in my mind was when negotiations had come to an end.
You can't keep 240,000+ guys hanging around at combat ready status. Morale will sag. Maybe their level of fitness will suffer. In 1982, PM Margaret Thatcher took exactly that stance with Argentina over the Falklands. Galtieri had failed to vacate the islands, so UK forces were deployed. THEN Galtieri suggested that he would renegotiate - if the British task force turned back from its two-week voyage to the South Atlantic. Galtieri was about to find out that this lady was not for turning. And if the forces had turned back? Galtieri would have done a Saddam and started laying down new conditions. The would have been more fudge and muddle. Because of Thatcher's deciciveness, a brilliant campaign was executed with excellent results.
I remember all the pacifist whining from 1982. (Dowding is too young to remember it) Leftists like Tony Benn were advocating "no war", and various other peaceniks came up with slogans like "jaw-jaw is better than war-war". When will they learn that you cannot negotiate with dictators like Galtieri - and Saddam. A glance through the history books shows that undesirable dictators have had to be removed by force - Hitler, Napoleon, Galtieri. Saddam is about to become the next in a long line of them.
Let's learn from past events here. The 1982 Falklands war resulted in the loss of 252 British lives. The first phase of the current Gulf war in 1991 resulted in about 30 deaths when a canteen was hit by a Scud missile, and some accidental friendly fire deaths. Now, as then, I do not see the Iraq situation developing into a "long and bloody campaign with millions of dead Iraqis" - that's what the peaceniks would have us believe. I agree with Pepe - the longer we wait, the more time Saddam has to arrange for a preferential distribution of his WMD.
Ahoy Blitz! See you next month at the con.
-
No I'm not. I was 4 years old and have vague recollections of watching it on the TV.
Besides, the Falklands was sovereign territory and therefore the war was in self-defence i.e. nothing like this pre-emptive attack against a country that has not attacked our territory.
Tony Benn is funny, and it seems only you take him seriously, BTW. :p
-
Baaahhh Dowding! You should go to the next peace rally. Dance cheek to cheek with Clare Short. You might not enjoy it, but I bet she has a wide on. ;)
-
Ewww!
If I had to do Clare Short, then you'd be getting it on with Anne Widdecome.
Somehow, I know I'm getting the better deal there. ;)
-
LOL! Yes, well I guess I had that coming - definitely no pun intended.
-
I have a cunning plan.
-
Tell you what, Dowding. I'll have my dance with Anne Widdecombe first, and then I'll let you have my brown paper bag to put over your head for your dance with Clare Short. That would be in addition to your own bag of course, as you will need two for Clare. :D
-
Originally posted by ra.
When you figure out a cheap way to get hydrogen in a useable form please let us know.
Hydrogen power is still in it's early stages, but there are isolated stations now where you can pull up and fill your tank. Supposedly there are laws on the books to begin producing hydrogen powered cars in the next few years. Hydrogen is a good thing for the geo-political landscape as well as the enviroment.
Use "hydrogen" as a word search in these forums and you'll come up with a few threads about it.
:)
-
Originally posted by blitz
2.We don't support Saddam Hussein, we just try to slow down Bush and his warmongeres.
3. Nobody wants Saddam alive and his regime [to] survive
I dont see Chirac and the others proposing the removal of Saddam. The only way to get him out is by force, he's not going to leave voluntarily. How are they going to do it without force? Sanctions?!?!
The shameful thing is that France is seeming to try to keep this man in power only for money. Even Vichy France's collaboration with the Nazis can be partially excused as dealing as best it could with a superior power. What superior power forced Saruman, er, I mean Chirac , to act in this manner?
-
Blitz I got about halfway through this thread and kept reading some of your comments. Though I don't find anything wrong with germans, and particularly enjoy the company of the exchange students of the female gender;)
Some of the things you say don't make any sense to me.
As far as the signature in every single posting...
Iraq threatens U.S. lives every day. They're firing at my friends, guys I know in several air force and navy squadrons flyng A-10 Thunderbolts and F/A-18 Hornets. I don't know if you've ever been shot at, but I would think it takes a person of extreme patience and a long long long temper to not want to shoot back with everything you've got. Iraq hasn't sat quietly twiddling their thumbs, it's been a shooting war every day since Desert Storm. These guys are over there right now getting shot at, as they have been for over a decade. All in support of the immense patience America has shown with Iraq. Put it this way, if someone pulled a weapon on you and you had a "big gun" in your hands with the safety off and your finger on the trigger...how much restraint would you show in this situation?
As for Europe's (read: France, Germany, Belgium) lack of support? Oh well. As I recall when my grandfathers, and there was more than one of them, marched into Paris nobody threw rocks and bricks at them telling them to go away because the German Nazi's at the time were such wonderful, fantastic people. They embraced them showering them with cheers, flowers, and kisses. None of these nations were attacked on their own soil. And this was the first time since the war of 1812 that an enemy has killed so many on American soil on the continental U.S. You'd better believe that I'm pissed off about that and support any action necessary to seek and destroy anyone in support of terrorism. I'm very uncomfortable about the thought that there is someone perhaps the same age as I or younger, who would love nothing more than to die killing me, and I've never met, spoken to, insulted, oppressed or angered him in any way. I dont necessarily WANT to go to war, because I would be the one to fight in the air with my bellybutton hanging in the breeze but you best believe that I will go. Are there better things to do than to kill people? Sure there are, but I didn't start this fight. I will however do my best and do my share to put an end to it.
American imperialism? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to be an imperialistic nation don't you need to invade, and occupy foreign countries with the intent of doing so for the sake of just doing so or to expand your territory? I DONT WANT IRAQ. I don't want Afghanistan, I don't want the Phillippines. I don't want to take over any country I just want to live in mine without having to think that at any given moment some uneducated peasant who doesn't know better from a poverty stricken nation might be walking into a shopping mall with a bomb with the intent of killing innocent people who don't want to hurt him. The folks who strap the bomb on him tell him that we want to take his land or we look down on his god or have greatly insulted his honor, but what choice has he got other than to believe that. If anything I'd spend the time and money doing what America does best. Cliche yes but the business of America is business. I'd be more than happy to have America, with its business and industrial superiority act as a consultant to any foreign nation who requested it, pro bono. Take a country and help them allocate their assets and teach them how they can take what they've got to offer, no matter what it is, and make a good life. I'd rather go to another country on a 747 in a business suit, than a fighter jet in a G-suit. Acting as a consultant pro bono would be a hell of a lot cheaper than the billions (pushing trillions) of dollars America gives away each year in grants to aid countries who can't sort out their own problems. Nobody helps America, but we've always been there for who ever needed us.
After WWII, did we enslave any nations? Nope. Did we rebuild all the things we blew up? Yes. Did we get Germany and Japan back on their feet? Yup. Did we spend the money and sacrifice the lives during the Berlin Airlift? You bet.
Pay special attention to this, blitz. Think again before you call us imperialists, because if we were you wouldn't have the privilege to think let alone say that about us.
-
Clare is not exactly top drawer, but Anne... can you even imagine it? :eek:
-
Originally posted by Toad
Maybe a good fairy will come and depose Saddam with a wave of her wand? Ya think? If we all hold hands and wish really, really hard?
We will try tommorow with a 35km candle light queue from 1 end of Berlin to the other :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by Stringer
The Germans do know something about this to be sure.
Stringer
Sure we know, that's why we wan't to warn our friends from overseas :)
Regards Blitz
-
Originally posted by beet1e
"long and bloody campaign with millions of dead Iraqis" - that's what the peaceniks would have us believe.
That's not my main concern, Paul Wolfowitz with his new world map and the politics behind to achieve this, is.
Ahoy Blitz! See you next month at the con.
[/B]
Lookin forward to meet you again and don't let us talk politics there, just shoot each other at the virtuel skies and have some beer together :)
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
We will try tommorow with a 35km candle queue from 1 end of Berlin to the other :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
Is there a candle light queue asking Saintly Saddam to resign or is it just another protest against that Evil Bush?
I'm betting you won't see any "Saddam Get OUT" signs at all.
-
Originally posted by Rasker
Originally posted by blitz
2.We don't support Saddam Hussein, we just try to slow down Bush and his warmongeres.
3. Nobody wants Saddam alive and his regime [to] survive
I dont see Chirac and the others proposing the removal of Saddam. The only way to get him out is by force, he's not going to leave voluntarily. How are they going to do it without force? Sanctions?!?!
The shameful thing is that France is seeming to try to keep this man in power only for money. Even Vichy France's collaboration with the Nazis can be partially excused as dealing as best it could with a superior power. What superior power forced Saruman, er, I mean Chirac , to act in this manner?
Sorry for misunderstanding. Was talkin about peacemarchers opinions not what governments say or may think.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by Toad
Maybe a good fairy will come and depose Saddam with a wave of her wand? Ya think? If we all hold hands and wish really, really hard?
LOL Yes!!! :D
Anything but force, no problems were ever solved with violence...
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Blitz I got about halfway through this thread and kept reading some of your comments. Though I don't find anything wrong with germans, and particularly enjoy the company of the exchange students of the female gender;)
Some of the things you say don't make any sense to me.
As far as the signature in every single posting...
Iraq threatens U.S. lives every day. They're firing at my friends, guys I know in several air force and navy squadrons flyng A-10 Thunderbolts and F/A-18 Hornets. I don't know if you've ever been shot at, but I would think it takes a person of extreme patience and a long long long temper to not want to shoot back with everything you've got. Iraq hasn't sat quietly twiddling their thumbs, it's been a shooting war every day since Desert Storm. These guys are over there right now getting shot at, as they have been for over a decade. All in support of the immense patience America has shown with Iraq. Put it this way, if someone pulled a weapon on you and you had a "big gun" in your hands with the safety off and your finger on the trigger...how much restraint would you show in this situation?
As for Europe's (read: France, Germany, Belgium) lack of support? Oh well. As I recall when my grandfathers, and there was more than one of them, marched into Paris nobody threw rocks and bricks at them telling them to go away because the German Nazi's at the time were such wonderful, fantastic people. They embraced them showering them with cheers, flowers, and kisses. None of these nations were attacked on their own soil. And this was the first time since the war of 1812 that an enemy has killed so many on American soil on the continental U.S. You'd better believe that I'm pissed off about that and support any action necessary to seek and destroy anyone in support of terrorism. I'm very uncomfortable about the thought that there is someone perhaps the same age as I or younger, who would love nothing more than to die killing me, and I've never met, spoken to, insulted, oppressed or angered him in any way. I dont necessarily WANT to go to war, because I would be the one to fight in the air with my bellybutton hanging in the breeze but you best believe that I will go. Are there better things to do than to kill people? Sure there are, but I didn't start this fight. I will however do my best and do my share to put an end to it.
American imperialism? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to be an imperialistic nation don't you need to invade, and occupy foreign countries with the intent of doing so for the sake of just doing so or to expand your territory? I DONT WANT IRAQ. I don't want Afghanistan, I don't want the Phillippines. I don't want to take over any country I just want to live in mine without having to think that at any given moment some uneducated peasant who doesn't know better from a poverty stricken nation might be walking into a shopping mall with a bomb with the intent of killing innocent people who don't want to hurt him. The folks who strap the bomb on him tell him that we want to take his land or we look down on his god or have greatly insulted his honor, but what choice has he got other than to believe that. If anything I'd spend the time and money doing what America does best. Cliche yes but the business of America is business. I'd be more than happy to have America, with its business and industrial superiority act as a consultant to any foreign nation who requested it, pro bono. Take a country and help them allocate their assets and teach them how they can take what they've got to offer, no matter what it is, and make a good life. I'd rather go to another country on a 747 in a business suit, than a fighter jet in a G-suit. Acting as a consultant pro bono would be a hell of a lot cheaper than the billions (pushing trillions) of dollars America gives away each year in grants to aid countries who can't sort out their own problems. Nobody helps America, but we've always been there for who ever needed us.
After WWII, did we enslave any nations? Nope. Did we rebuild all the things we blew up? Yes. Did we get Germany and Japan back on their feet? Yup. Did we spend the money and sacrifice the lives during the Berlin Airlift? You bet.
Pay special attention to this, blitz. Think again before you call us imperialists, because if we were you wouldn't have the privilege to think let alone say that about us.
You talk about american imperialism , not me.
Are Americans the people with the better qualities? Nah, they just people like others, some good, some bad.
My girl is comin soon , may be tomorow longer reply.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by Toad
Is there a candle light queue asking Saintly Saddam to resign or is it just another protest against that Evil Bush?
I'm betting you won't see any "Saddam Get OUT" signs at all.
It's against Iraq war, organized from ev. church, doubt there will be posters.
Altough it's against the war nobody out there is for Saddam and his regime , i asure you (you don't believe it anyways)
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
hmm, thats like saying, "while I am against Hitler, I am *also* opposed to the only practical way of getting rid of him"
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I hope this because I want the best for my country.
a lot of interesting points.... but this one is BS
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
a lot of interesting points.... but this one is BS
What do you mean? Please be more verbose.
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by blitz
Lookin forward to meet you again and don't let us talk politics there, just shoot each other at the virtuel skies and have some beer together :)
Ahoy, Blitz! We can talk politics if we feel like it. ;) Just because we have opposing points of view doesn't mean we can't be friends. Be sure to bring that beer cooler thing with you! We've got some Americans coming again this year - they're so funny when they're pissed - after 2 beers - LOL.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Ahoy, Blitz! We can talk politics if we feel like it. ;) Just because we have opposing points of view doesn't mean we can't be friends. Be sure to bring that beer cooler thing with you! We've got some Americans coming again this year - they're so funny when they're pissed - after 2 beers - LOL.
Damn, i'm afraid they'll use their 9mms after we had five of them beers :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by Rasker
hmm, thats like saying, "while I am against Hitler, I am *also* opposed to the only practical way of getting rid of him"
Let's sing a song: 'Bla, Blah, Blaaaa, Blaaa, ,Bla,Bla...'
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Ahoy, Blitz! We can talk politics if we feel like it. ;) Just because we have opposing points of view doesn't mean we can't be friends. Be sure to bring that beer cooler thing with you! We've got some Americans coming again this year - they're so funny when they're pissed - after 2 beers - LOL.
Like them american friends from American Anti War Embassy at our candle light queue party in Berlin tonight.
They got a nice big 'Transparent'.
'Stop The Warlovers'
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous