PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else support the war like myself?



Steel
02-24-2008, 02:02 PM
I really hope we don't get out of the war soon, I'll be furious, I'm rejoining the marine corps in the fall and cant wait to get over there.

Steel
02-24-2008, 02:42 PM
for the uk maybe. and i dont think its really a war either, but i dont think we should stop being there.

VirDeBello
02-24-2008, 02:48 PM
Its something we can't win at, atleast with the policies we use. Maybe we do what the Romans did, either become a territory or state of Rome or be killed. Period. lmao Too bad it can't be that easy..........or can it.....? lol

MANFRA
02-24-2008, 03:00 PM
Here's the deal.. we will not win Iraq over and turn it into a democracy.. So we 1. stay there for 10 more years and lose thousands and thousands of more lives.. or 2. we can leave now so many will live to see another day.

Hey Steel, this is reality, not counter strike. You don't restart at the end of the round. You also don't sound like a marine to me.. they're smarter then what you're making yourself out to be.

Paladin
02-24-2008, 03:04 PM
That warmonger attitude is what makes me agree with Manfra.

You don't want the war to end? Are you serious? You want more and more human lives to be lost every day? That's ridiculous, and barbaric. Also you want to go over there....Why? To end lives yourself? To deprive a family of a father, a son, a mother, or of anything of the like?

Believe me, when you get over there your going to regret it when your looking into the empty eyes of a dead child.

Itch
02-24-2008, 03:07 PM
You don't want the war to end? Are you serious? You want more and more human lives to be lost every day? That's ridiculous, and barbaric. Also you want to go over there....Why? To end lives yourself? To deprive a family of a father, a son, a mother, or of anything of the like?

I figure it's either like Paladin said, or you're suicidal.
So which is it? You want to kill people or looking for a way to get killed?

Hunter
02-24-2008, 03:21 PM
It may sound crazy but I think World War 3 sounds exciting as much as I wish it never happens it would still be...interesting. O and plus I don't support war unless for good cause...like world domination...if only there was some way war wouldnt involve injuries.

LegalSmash
02-24-2008, 03:25 PM
steel, you seem to misunderstand the difference between supporting a war and actively contracting yourself to wage it.

I'll first say that I support the troops, and the mission, in the narrow sense that the mission is to stabilize a country through enabling its own forces to police their territories and root out terrorism, corruption, and generally run a country in an agreeable fashion. I dont support however, the occupation of a hostile area without any real purpose outside of "standin' round in the dustbowl". I have friends there that are officers, 2 in intel and one in artillery. Here is the basic scenario: We patrol, drive around, stand at checkpoints, they set off bombs, take pot shots, or sabotage some sort of thing and try to blow our guys up....

I mean, call me crazy, but I dont see any real attractive experience there steel. I dont see what kind of "pleasure (Dare i say)" you would get from that.

MANFRA
02-24-2008, 05:26 PM
steel, you seem to misunderstand the difference between supporting a war and actively contracting yourself to wage it.

I'll first say that I support the troops, and the mission, in the narrow sense that the mission is to stabilize a country through enabling its own forces to police their territories and root out terrorism, corruption, and generally run a country in an agreeable fashion. I dont support however, the occupation of a hostile area without any real purpose outside of "standin' round in the dustbowl". I have friends there that are officers, 2 in intel and one in artillery. Here is the basic scenario: We patrol, drive around, stand at checkpoints, they set off bombs, take pot shots, or sabotage some sort of thing and try to blow our guys up....

I mean, call me crazy, but I dont see any real attractive experience there steel. I dont see what kind of "pleasure (Dare i say)" you would get from that.

Legal thats why I don't support this war anymore, because the mission and planning of it was very poorly done. As for Steel, he watches too many Rambo movies.. and maybe it would be for the better if one of the AO's perm. ban him from C.S. lol. Joking of course.

phatman76
02-24-2008, 05:35 PM
Here's the deal.. we will not win Iraq over and turn it into a democracy.. So we 1. stay there for 10 more years and lose thousands and thousands of more lives.. or 2. we can leave now so many will live to see another day.

Hey Steel, this is reality, not counter strike. You don't restart at the end of the round. You also don't sound like a marine to me.. they're smarter then what you're making yourself out to be.

Manfra you are wrong. We can win, you are a defeatist. Winning means staying there for as long as it takes (probably 50-100 years) to turn that country into something safe, free and wealthy. We have done it before, don't think we can't do it again. Let's just look at a few examples: South Korea, Japan and West Germany. South Korea was a land of rice patties and death before we turned it into a functional, and wealthy state (btw we are still there). Germany was basically bombed back to the stone age after WWII, and we destroyed the fanatical remnants of the Nazis and built West Germany into a new democracy. Japan is the best example probably. After it fell apart, we rebuilt it into one of the strongest economies on the globe. And the Japanese were, at the time, fanatical zealots who believed their race was chosen to rule the world and that were willing to crash planes full of explosives into United States ships (sound familiar?) to prove it. We can win in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we just have to dig in and get it done.

MANFRA
02-24-2008, 05:49 PM
Manfra you are wrong. We can win, you are a defeatist. Winning means staying there for as long as it takes (probably 50-100 years) to turn that country into something safe, free and wealthy. We have done it before, don't think we can't do it again. Let's just look at a few examples: South Korea, Japan and West Germany. South Korea was a land of rice patties and death before we turned it into a functional, and wealthy state (btw we are still there). Germany was basically bombed back to the stone age after WWII, and we destroyed the fanatical remnants of the Nazis and built West Germany into a new democracy. Japan is the best example probably. After it fell apart, we rebuilt it into one of the strongest economies on the globe. And the Japanese were, at the time, fanatical zealots who believed their race was chosen to rule the world and that were willing to crash planes full of explosives into United States ships (sound familiar?) to prove it. We can win in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we just have to dig in and get it done.

Japan is the worse example.. they aren't muslim. For us to go into the middle east and tell them how to live is straight up wrong. Their religion requires them to do things we don't like and wouldn't except over here.. but what they do there is their business. If someone over there doesn't like it, they can leave. We will never be able to force them to believe what we believe especially if you're talking 50 to 100 years like McCain.. where would we get the money to hold out that long? We had Japan under security within a year. They just wanted to go back to normal life. In the muslim belief, having american soldiers on their soil is against everything they believe in and we will end up being there for 100 years.. with thousands of more dead Americans. We need to get out while we can.

Steel
02-24-2008, 06:42 PM
Well manfra, we've only lost a few thousand men, and though I know I sound extremely callus saying "only", you have to think that we lost more than that on d-day normandy.

I have my own reasons for wanting to go there, and no im not suicidal, and im not some war junkie or anything like that.

But I do beleive we need to stay there for the main reason that the second we leave them alone, the government and infrastructure we've built/building will be torn down by their own backassed nature. Then once thats been done they'll start trying to attack us again, so I figure it's helping our country by actively helping theirs, and though a lot of soldiers and marines will die over the years of us being there, I honestly think its better to take a citizens life, one who knows what he's getting into when he joins the army or corps, then having innocent men, women and children's lifes taken from their homes, or workplaces on our land.

but hell, as long as i want to go I might as well adapt the mindset of having a little fun while im over there right? I was discharged last august and since then I've been getting my body back into shape to rejoin once i can.

VirDeBello
02-24-2008, 07:28 PM
"You must have war to have peace"
War and violence is part of nature, its what we are and it must be done. To protect lives.
You may think, no there are other ways to have peace without war but not everyone thinks exactly the same. So not everyone will have the same thought of what terms they would want. Like I said before. Go back to the Roman days.......either go with our terms or die. And those previous wars were fought differently. We didn't have precision bombing back then, all they did was carpet bombing. Maybe if we did bomb they whole country of Iraq, it would be easier but we stay with the policies of being "humane".

phatman76
02-25-2008, 12:43 AM
Japan is the worse example.. they aren't muslim. For us to go into the middle east and tell them how to live is straight up wrong. Their religion requires them to do things we don't like and wouldn't except over here.. but what they do there is their business. If someone over there doesn't like it, they can leave. We will never be able to force them to believe what we believe especially if you're talking 50 to 100 years like McCain.. where would we get the money to hold out that long? We had Japan under security within a year. They just wanted to go back to normal life. In the muslim belief, having american soldiers on their soil is against everything they believe in and we will end up being there for 100 years.. with thousands of more dead Americans. We need to get out while we can.

Japan was a good example. They believed the world belonged to them, and they wanted to take it, and they tried. We showed them that the second they hurt us, we will retaliate to the point of nuking them. It is the same with Afghanistan. The instant they attacked us, all of their "rights" and "beliefs" became instantly worthless. They have no rights when they have hurt ours. Their business is our business when they hurt us.

The ultimate problem, however, is not the current air of extremism. The problem is Islam itself. Any religion that advocates the destruction of non-adherents cannot coexist with freedom or liberty.

Slavic
02-25-2008, 08:57 AM
but hell, as long as i want to go I might as well adapt the mindset of having a little fun while im over there right? I was discharged last august and since then I've been getting my body back into shape to rejoin once i can.

Be careful with that man its not going to be all fun and games, especially now that we are an occupying force. I have family and friends who have served since the beginning and all of them do not like how government and politics are getting mixed up in the battle field.

Also watch out for the whole "having a lil fun". From what i've heard people like that can go overboard and like to be brutal. Cousin of mine had a man who snapped in his squad and started cutting off the heads of all their POWs with a buck knife. Yet somehow that man is not in jail.

My cousin was just like you, has always been gunho and knew he wanted to be a Marine ever since he was little. You missed out on the actual war a few years ago, now your going to go in as the police.

Steel
02-25-2008, 09:05 AM
Oh I know slavic, I missed fallujah. But still, the army is the main occupying force, the marine corps is still assaulting, in fact the are sending 3,200 more to afganastan for a counterassault.

MANFRA
02-25-2008, 10:35 AM
I can't reply to steel anymore. I don't think he understands the magnitude of the situation over there or anything around it.


Japan was a good example. They believed the world belonged to them, and they wanted to take it, and they tried. We showed them that the second they hurt us, we will retaliate to the point of nuking them. It is the same with Afghanistan. The instant they attacked us, all of their "rights" and "beliefs" became instantly worthless. They have no rights when they have hurt ours. Their business is our business when they hurt us.

The ultimate problem, however, is not the current air of extremism. The problem is Islam itself. Any religion that advocates the destruction of non-adherents cannot coexist with freedom or liberty.

And as for Japan. Bad example. People relating to a religion is 100% different then japanese people being convinced that they're the best race on the planet. You tell me why Muslims hate us.. I want to know your opinion.

VirDeBello
02-25-2008, 01:32 PM
lol I git it now......you want us to nuke them. Is that it lol? Just start from scratch eh? The problem is that even if we find the main leaders of terrorism, that someone else will just step in their place and so on and so forth. Either we destroy them all or they realize that their attempts are fruitless. Either way its hard to tell what will happen especially with the upcoming election.

Slavic
02-25-2008, 04:01 PM
lol I git it now......you want us to nuke them. Is that it lol? Just start from scratch eh? The problem is that even if we find the main leaders of terrorism, that someone else will just step in their place and so on and so forth. Either we destroy them all or they realize that their attempts are fruitless. Either way its hard to tell what will happen especially with the upcoming election.

There has always been terrorism and war throughout the world for eons. Lol how are we going to "win" a "war" on terrorism if it will always exist. Thats like declaring war on war. Or war on violence, or war on drugs, or war of the worlds. Damn those other worlds thinking they are better than us. *looks at Mars*

phatman76
02-25-2008, 07:14 PM
And as for Japan. Bad example. People relating to a religion is 100% different then japanese people being convinced that they're the best race on the planet. You tell me why Muslims hate us.. I want to know your opinion.

I have talked about this before in other threads, but can't find it, if this reply isn't good enough I will search some more. Anyways, the problem is the existence of Islam. It is a religion that can be easily interpreted to advocate destruction of all non-Muslims. As long as that religion exists, I believe there really is no permanent solution to the middle east fiasco. Their leaders literally hate freedom. They will kill us to prevent us from having it, they will kill us because they believe that if we don't convert, we are worse than dead. That whole idea is antithetical to everything good about the West.

If I will die to defend my religious and political freedom of choice, and they will die to take it away, then we have a war on our hands. Now that they have the technology to reach out and touch us, we have to really fight.

Maybe they hate us a little more because of all the crap that the Cold War caused and whatnot, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to Radical Islam.

broncoty
02-25-2008, 08:22 PM
I have talked about this before in other threads, but can't find it, if this reply isn't good enough I will search some more. Anyways, the problem is the existence of Islam. It is a religion that can be easily interpreted to advocate destruction of all non-Muslims. As long as that religion exists, I believe there really is no permanent solution to the middle east fiasco. Their leaders literally hate freedom. They will kill us to prevent us from having it, they will kill us because they believe that if we don't convert, we are worse than dead. That whole idea is antithetical to everything good about the West.

If I will die to defend my religious and political freedom of choice, and they will die to take it away, then we have a war on our hands. Now that they have the technology to reach out and touch us, we have to really fight.

Maybe they hate us a little more because of all the crap that the Cold War caused and whatnot, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to Radical Islam.

Are not sunnis generally for secular government?

phatman76
02-25-2008, 10:20 PM
Are not sunnis generally for secular government?

Not all of em, and not all Muslims are sunni anyways...

broncoty
02-26-2008, 08:27 AM
Not all of em, and not all Muslims are sunni anyways...

but some are for secular government right?

Slavic
02-26-2008, 09:20 AM
but some are for secular government right?

Between 85%-90% of all Muslims worldwide are Sunnis. There are a good deal of secular nations that have a Sunni Muslim majority. But the reason it seems that Sunni Muslims have a more secular view point is that there is only two Shia majority nations, Iran and Azerbaijan, the later being secular.

I always adhere to the idea that civil/religious change will only occur successfully when it is done internally and domestically. All of the monarchies of Europe ended up falling or changing due to internal unrest. Before that, Papal and Christian Governance fell through and made way to secularism, but all of that took many years to happen.

If Islam progresses at the same rate as Christianity with respect to civil rights, then they are still 600 years behind. The Crusades were justified through loose interpretations of the Bible and the reliance on non-divine material such as the New Testament and Paul's letters. The Jihad is being justified through loose interpretations of the Qur'an and reliance on non-divine material such as the Hadith and the Sunnah.

Don't let the notion that Islam and Secularism can't go hand in hand. It works in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Albania, Mali and a bunch of countries in the Far East including Kazakhstan and countries in Western and Eastern Africa.

VirDeBello
02-26-2008, 01:42 PM
Between 85%-90% of all Muslims worldwide are Sunnis. There are a good deal of secular nations that have a Sunni Muslim majority. But the reason it seems that Sunni Muslims have a more secular view point is that there is only two Shia majority nations, Iran and Azerbaijan, the later being secular.

I always adhere to the idea that civil/religious change will only occur successfully when it is done internally and domestically. All of the monarchies of Europe ended up falling or changing due to internal unrest. Before that, Papal and Christian Governance fell through and made way to secularism, but all of that took many years to happen.

If Islam progresses at the same rate as Christianity with respect to civil rights, then they are still 600 years behind. The Crusades were justified through loose interpretations of the Bible and the reliance on non-divine material such as the New Testament and Paul's letters. The Jihad is being justified through loose interpretations of the Qur'an and reliance on non-divine material such as the Hadith and the Sunnah.

Don't let the notion that Islam and Secularism can't go hand in hand. It works in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Albania, Mali and a bunch of countries in the Far East including Kazakhstan and countries in Western and Eastern Africa.

Damn smooth, damn smooth. I agree 110% with yah.

Gumpy
02-26-2008, 02:51 PM
To quote the quotes from cod4 when you die 'The only people that want to go to war, have never been!' When you go to war steel you will not enjoy it when you or your friends die.

broncoty
02-26-2008, 05:02 PM
Don't let the notion that Islam and Secularism can't go hand in hand. It works in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Albania, Mali and a bunch of countries in the Far East including Kazakhstan and countries in Western and Eastern Africa.

that is what i was getting at

phatman76
02-26-2008, 06:37 PM
Between 85%-90% of all Muslims worldwide are Sunnis. There are a good deal of secular nations that have a Sunni Muslim majority. But the reason it seems that Sunni Muslims have a more secular view point is that there is only two Shia majority nations, Iran and Azerbaijan, the later being secular.

I always adhere to the idea that civil/religious change will only occur successfully when it is done internally and domestically. All of the monarchies of Europe ended up falling or changing due to internal unrest. Before that, Papal and Christian Governance fell through and made way to secularism, but all of that took many years to happen.

If Islam progresses at the same rate as Christianity with respect to civil rights, then they are still 600 years behind. The Crusades were justified through loose interpretations of the Bible and the reliance on non-divine material such as the New Testament and Paul's letters. The Jihad is being justified through loose interpretations of the Qur'an and reliance on non-divine material such as the Hadith and the Sunnah.

Don't let the notion that Islam and Secularism can't go hand in hand. It works in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Albania, Mali and a bunch of countries in the Far East including Kazakhstan and countries in Western and Eastern Africa.

Wrong on a few points there. First of all, the west didn't rise by "domestic improvement," it improved by all the countries beating the crap out of each other as hard as they could in order to steal more stuff from other continents. That, along with a technology-forward religious reformation, spurred on tech development and political advance. Also, advance didn't come at the abandonment of religion for the west, rather the embrace of it with the reformation and other great religious revivals. The only things that abandoning God caused in the West were communism and fascism, two historic failures.

As for "secular" Islamic nations, I still see a dangerous amount of power in the hands of religious leaders and significant conflict, Turkey especially. As for giving the middle-east "time," not good enough. No. If they fight us, we will either destroy them or drag them kicking and screaming up to our level of civilization. Many are lucky we want to do the latter first.

Italian Jew
02-26-2008, 07:01 PM
Drag them up to our level of civilization?

They have a different culture than ours, that doesn't mean they are beneath us. As a matter of fact, that area was where the first civilizations began, so technically they are ahead.

Their ways of governing are perfect for that region of the world. Making it democratic will just add to the conflict. We have no business over there, just as they have no business over here. How would we react if Iran came over here preaching secularism in a nation that has known democracy since its birth? The same way they are reacting.

LitKey
02-26-2008, 07:12 PM
How would we react if Iran came over here preaching secularism in a nation that has known democracy since its birth? The same way they are reacting.

Uh, we are secular and democratic.

VirDeBello
02-26-2008, 07:44 PM
Drag them up to our level of civilization?

They have a different culture than ours, that doesn't mean they are beneath us. As a matter of fact, that area was where the first civilizations began, so technically they are ahead.

Their ways of governing are perfect for that region of the world. Making it democratic will just add to the conflict. We have no business over there, just as they have no business over here. How would we react if Iran came over here preaching secularism in a nation that has known democracy since its birth? The same way they are reacting.

We actually have business over these since they attacked us.....
Not Iran but terrorism that has grown in the region. And Iran is a whole different issue........lol lets not git started with that.

Italian Jew
02-26-2008, 08:48 PM
lol...woops... meant how secularism is bad... : /

You'd think they would over use the word infidel, but they don't.

Terrorists attacked us...so we invade a country that has little ties to it as opposed to other countries with more terrorist connections? Sounds like Baby Bush gotta grudge...

Making war to stop war... doesn't work that way. We learned that lesson by calling World War I the war to end all wars. Forcing democracy down their throats just pisses them off. It could work for a few years at the most, but 20 years from now, headlines will not read how peaceful the Middle East is and how terrorism was weakened due to the U.S.

phatman76
02-26-2008, 11:00 PM
lol...woops... meant how secularism is bad... : /

You'd think they would over use the word infidel, but they don't.

Terrorists attacked us...so we invade a country that has little ties to it as opposed to other countries with more terrorist connections? Sounds like Baby Bush gotta grudge...

Making war to stop war... doesn't work that way. We learned that lesson by calling World War I the war to end all wars. Forcing democracy down their throats just pisses them off. It could work for a few years at the most, but 20 years from now, headlines will not read how peaceful the Middle East is and how terrorism was weakened due to the U.S.

I care little if we create a "lasting democracy" over in the middle east. It would be nice, dare I say beneficial, to have Iraq or Afghanistan become a working ally. However, the main reason we are there is to destroy the means for anyone there to attack us and to secure our vital interests in the area, namely oil. We also got a lotta bad guys at the same time, another bonus.

Italian, you are partly right, war does in some cases beget war. However, when we make war, the people who lose rarely put themselves back together, if at all. We make war to destroy other people's capacity to wage it.

broncoty
02-26-2008, 11:16 PM
for italian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

Italian Jew
02-26-2008, 11:46 PM
I know what securalism is

Well, we kicked the shit out of those terrorists and Iraqi insurgents! Good thing those guys do not exist anymore...PHEW! Didn't some of our outstanding leaders say we won the war already? Or did we start a whole new war under the ruse of the war on terror? How many wars will it take to conquer the Middle East as we intend to do?

broncoty
02-27-2008, 07:36 AM
I know what securalism is

then why would you say it is bad?

broncoty
02-27-2008, 07:39 AM
lol...woops... meant how secularism is bad... : /


Making war to stop war... doesn't work that way. We learned that lesson by calling World War I the war to end all wars. Forcing democracy down their throats just pisses them off. It could work for a few years at the most, but 20 years from now, headlines will not read how peaceful the Middle East is and how terrorism was weakened due to the U.S.

WWII (in europe) was from putting all the blame on germany with the treaty of versailles, it had nothing to do with shoving democracy anywhere.

broncoty
02-27-2008, 07:46 AM
Wrong on a few points there. First of all, the west didn't rise by "domestic improvement," it improved by all the countries beating the crap out of each other as hard as they could in order to steal more stuff from other continents. That, along with a technology-forward religious reformation, spurred on tech development and political advance. Also, advance didn't come at the abandonment of religion for the west, rather the embrace of it with the reformation and other great religious revivals. The only things that abandoning God caused in the West were communism and fascism, two historic failures.

As for "secular" Islamic nations, I still see a dangerous amount of power in the hands of religious leaders and significant conflict, Turkey especially. As for giving the middle-east "time," not good enough. No. If they fight us, we will either destroy them or drag them kicking and screaming up to our level of civilization. Many are lucky we want to do the latter first.

There will always be religious influence, the constitution to muslims is sometimes seen as a "christian" document.

The only reason westerners are now more powerful than the east is because during the renaissance the West had a scientific revolution. The east had been more advanced than the west for hundreds of years, the only thing that allowed the west to pass the east was the west semi tolerated ideas that disproved god or more accurate explanations of reality with science rather than spiritual reasons.

Italian Jew
02-27-2008, 11:53 AM
Broncoty, I was saying that Iran was calling securalism a bad idea, as that is probably how they would act if they came over here and "helped" us as we are to the Middle East. Also, I was not saying WWI was shoving democracy down their throats, I am saying now is when the U.S. is shoving democracy down the Middle East's throat. I was referring to the mentality that having a war would prevent another war from breaking out in the future. It was the war to end all wars back then...

Next time I will make it simpler for you guys and put numbers next to my ideas

: )

phatman76
02-27-2008, 07:43 PM
There will always be religious influence, the constitution to muslims is sometimes seen as a "christian" document.

The only reason westerners are now more powerful than the east is because during the renaissance the West had a scientific revolution. The east had been more advanced than the west for hundreds of years, the only thing that allowed the west to pass the east was the west semi tolerated ideas that disproved god or more accurate explanations of reality with science rather than spiritual reasons.

Alright, I am going to ignore the second part of your post, it will lead to a senseless argument, I just want to say that your idea is not the only one as to why the west rose.

As for the Constitution being "Christian," yes it is Christian in origin. I admit that. The Constitution was written by a room full of many men who were die-hard protestants, although a few may have been deists. The point is, this Constitution was written with a distinct Judeo-Christian morality driving many of its ideas, such as free-will, liberty, law and order, and the ownership of property. Unfortunately, Islam as preached by many radicals in the middle east and what many beg the west to "tolerate" as a "different view" advocates none of these rights or ideas. It is a fundamental difference that cannot be resolved. They know it, so the radicals are trying to fight us and force us to conform to theocracy, submission, and ultimately slavery to religion; to "terrorize" us into surrender. Once they are capable of hurting us, we must fight back, it is a fight for not just our lives and land, but for our ideas and rights.

We don't advocate Christianity, we just advocate the social rights developed by the Christian West. They advocate submission to Islam, and its own moral codes. That is the fundamental difference. It will be resolved either by them changing, us losing, or a lot more people dying.

LegalSmash
02-27-2008, 09:32 PM
^ that is an accurate statement of the facts imho.

TheRealPlayer
03-20-2008, 02:08 PM
Some of the soldiers like being over there. Consider them.

Captain Colon
03-20-2008, 02:53 PM
Some of the soldiers like being over there. Consider them.
I know one person that does; he's kind of just a shitty guy all-around.

I have talked about this before in other threads, but can't find it, if this reply isn't good enough I will search some more. Anyways, the problem is the existence of Islam. It is a religion that can be easily interpreted to advocate destruction of all non-Muslims. As long as that religion exists, I believe there really is no permanent solution to the middle east fiasco. Their leaders literally hate freedom. They will kill us to prevent us from having it, they will kill us because they believe that if we don't convert, we are worse than dead. That whole idea is antithetical to everything good about the West.
Actually I'm pretty sure the problem (for the US) is the existence of Israel and our continued meddling in the middle-east. Remember that the UN pretty much just gave the jews half of palestine because they felt bad about the holocaust, then israel decided to take the rest "to enhance national security." Doesn't matter who was there first 4000 years ago, Arabs feel gypped. Israel and our support of them is ALWAYS gonna be one of the biggest sore spots not only with extremists, but arab moderates as well.

If you think muslims hate freedom, look up all the rules orthodox jews have to follow (part of the reason christianity became so popular was you didn't have to follow all those rules to win the game; islam is the same in that regard).

Red
03-20-2008, 03:24 PM
Arabs feel gypped. Israel and our support of them is ALWAYS gonna be one of the biggest sore spots not only with extremists, but arab moderates as well

http://www.iconoclast.ca/databases/images/aENDUNJUSTJEWOCCUPTATION.jpg

Yeah those Arabs are really taking it up the ass /sarc




And those Jews were a real sore spot for Hitler, should have let the Nazis kill them all.

LegalSmash
03-20-2008, 03:26 PM
im going to address this matter in a few hours/next few days. Israel is actually there legally, in accord with the ownership and conveyance of the land allegedly known as "Palestine" after the cannibalization of the ottoman empire and the end of hostilities in WW1 and WW2 respectively.

Stay tuned. Have actual work to attend to for now. until then, duckie, boobie, twiddle.

matt 187
03-20-2008, 03:32 PM
war make's no sence

war is all bullshit we are at war for no-reson 9/11 was pland by bush.

there is to much bullshit in the world nothen make's sence.

when the NWO comes it's all over.

NWO
new world order

Captain Colon
03-20-2008, 03:37 PM
http://www.iconoclast.ca/databases/images/aENDUNJUSTJEWOCCUPTATION.jpg

Yeah those Arabs are really taking it up the ass /sarc




And those Jews were a real sore spot for Hitler, should have let the Nazis kill them all.
We don't really have a holy land as a secular society so I guess just pick something you'd die for.

A lot of you guys seem awfully close-minded for supposedly being so enlightened by your endless freedom.

*E*legal i eagerly await your post, hurry up :P

Hunter
03-20-2008, 03:42 PM
Personally I think we should give the Palestinians back there land legal or not ( I don't know which side I support so please don't kill me). I could go more into detail seen as I did History and everything but I don't want to get flamed :(. So we should all just learn to get along. If we did we would advance in everything ten times faster.

LegalSmash
03-20-2008, 04:09 PM
First: I dont have personal stake in either group. I descend from the Spanish, and both groups at some point fucked my ancestors, sans lube. Also, I will avoid the issue of "religion", holy land, faith, etc. because they are about as relevant to an issue of land dispute as a pair of tits on a bull. Additionally, I do not feel that I am sufficiently well versed at the present time to deal with a protracted discussion of "which faith is right". Rather, I will address the matter of historical fact.

Actually it was the British Mandate of Palestine that basically deeded the land to the Jews, then their own 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict solidified them. After the Ottoman empire fell at or about the end of WW1, the Brits and French carved the area up piecemeal. The British came around and asked if anyone owned the land. Under the sultanate and the ottomans, land OWNERS paid taxes. These squirrel-like desert folk refused to admit they owned the land to avoid taxation... they were basically treated as "indigenous species" for the purposes of land conveyance... nothing more than deer or sheep that came with the land.

THE League of nations charged the Brits with a special job. The Brits were supposed to engage in "placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home"

The Jews were eventually given the land, after problems arose with the jews and the arabs there, and the mandate expired, the jews declared themselves a state (the way we did... by fighting in conflict... ) and through warfare took land... this is another legal means of taking land, conquest. From what I understand, the Brits enjoyed doing this before everyone in London was naming their baby Mohammad.

The Israelites invested in the land, built infrastructure, and have greatly contributed to the world stage. Medicine, treatments, technology, science, literature, art, and other categories. They have made Israel into a first world area... despite the conflict. They have fought off countless incursions and through conquest taken land from their aggressors (again, a legal method of taking land under ALL law, even the sharia and Koran). I do not see how their quest for peace and security is any different from any other autonomous nation defending itself from invaders, foreign or domestic.

The "indigenous people of palestine" have contributed stone throwing and carbombs... they also ruined the Munich olympics. Also, due to the alienating nature of their faith, their lack of natural resources, or for that matter usefulness in the world stage outside of being human ballistic missiles, its difficult for them to get aid from anyone NOT sympathetic to them through commonality of faith.

The US DOES veto action against Israel on the UN because defending yourself should not be condemned as wrong. the UN suffers from an over abundance of "george clooney syndrome" in that they want to toss flowers to every lost cause in existence... this is where that whole "bleeding heart" thing comes to play... also, its easy to condemn and deploy troops for the UN, after all, its american boys that do the job anyhow.

Israel's claim is rightful, internationally and under most domestic legal systems. The fact that Palestine has tried, along with its 14 neighbors and repeatedly failed in spectacular, cobra commander like fashion to "crush Israel into the sea" is enough to make me feel no pity for their people, their "government" or their cause. Legally, in my eyes, they are nothing more than tax evading land squatters.

Try going a day without using ANYTHING that was made, paid for, funded, or somehow related to an Israelite. You likely wont get far.

As a button, I will say that Jews in this country disconcert me however. Their liberalism is astonishing, despite the fact that most of their "other" liberal voting group counterparts dislike the Jews, Israel, and most of what their struggle stands for. (Many blacks to this day will allege that their struggle was more important, serious, etc. than the jewish struggle throughout history against annihilation).

Red
03-20-2008, 04:28 PM
A lot of you guys seem awfully close-minded for supposedly being so enlightened by your endless freedom.



We've just been out of college enough to take in reality.

Not that I thought much different in college, (unlike 80% of the bleeding heart college kids driving their parents bmws and drinking mocha lattes while preaching anti-corp crap)

Israelis are Productive/inventive/Useful
Palestinians, not so much

phatman76
03-20-2008, 04:28 PM
Israel's claim is rightful, internationally and under most domestic legal systems.



lol, "rightful," haha. Okay, I totally agree. Except the last part about American Jews being liberal. They aren't all liberal crazies. I know quite a few who are good solid Republicans, and others who are die-hard conservatives. The more religiously conservative Jews are much more politically conservative, while reformed Jews are often more liberal. Go to New York, conservative Jews basically own the diamond district, and there are plenty of them on wall street too. I can agree though that a lot more Jews are liberal than normal ratios among other racial groups. Anyways, it is a more religiously caused thing than a racial thing.

Finally, I love Israel. They kick so much ass every time they get into a conflict, and they are basically almost always right. Their government still believes defense is the first priority they should have, we should too.

Red
03-20-2008, 04:30 PM
I've noticed many jews are either really conservative or really liberal.

I've had anti-gun, pork eating anti-israel jewish friends, then I've had ones that own many guns, don't pussy foot and are not annoying whiners.

I like the latter.

*Queen VenomousFate*
03-20-2008, 04:31 PM
I Support The War, Believe Me I Don't Like War, But I Do Believe We Have To Stay There To Protect Our Homeland From Terrorists. Not Staying There Forever Though, Just Untill The Iraqis Are Ready.

I Personally Could Not Go Out And Protest A War Untill A Majority Of The Soldiers Themselves Have Expressed Extremelly Vocally (Not Just Through Mumblings Or Interviews, But Through Organized Anti-War Action) Becuase I Believe That Speaking Out Against The War Demoralizes The Troops Because They Do Not Serve The US Government, They Serve The Citizens Of The United States. WHen They See These Mass Ralies They Get Demoralized Because People Dont Support What They Are Doing. (Saying I Support The Troops Is Like Saying I Support Life, Because All You Really Support Is The Livelyhood Of The Soldiers And Not Their Assigned Mission, Now There Is Nothing Wrong With Supporting Their Livelyhood, But It Can Be Demoralzing That People Dont Support What You Are Doing As Well). I Could Not Do Anything To Demoralize The Troops.

This Is A PERSONAL Opinion Only Relating To Myself, I Do Not Look Down Upon People Who Protest The War Unless They Do It Violently, Because Protesting Is Protected Under Your First Ammendment.

Just Don't Protest To Take Away My Guns, There Is A Long History Of Battles Between Protestors And Guns, Guns Always Wins.

Edit: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2b1hf_village-people-in-the-navy-version_music

Captain Colon
03-20-2008, 04:36 PM
Legal, i guess that stuff mostly makes sense, but there wouldn't have even been an arab-israeli war if israel hadn't been created. Maybe you'd be indifferent to a change in rule, but what about when you're forced to relocate to a shantytown cause someplace across the country got bombed? It's a lot like what happened to japanese-americans during WW2. Not to mention israel's "legality by conquest" is mainly thanks to them having US support. They have what might just be the best military in the world, but there's no way for them to win any kind of serious, extended conflict on their own. Nearly all the success they enjoy can be attributed to our support (which also gives them near-unlimited leeway with the UN as we can and do veto any legislation that might hinder them).


Israelis are Productive/inventive/Useful
Palestinians, not so much
Cause they have so many resources and means available with which to be productive on the world stage, not being a recognized state and all. The tone is also bordering on downright racist IMO :\

*Queen VenomousFate*
03-20-2008, 04:39 PM
I've noticed many jews are either really conservative or really liberal.

I've had anti-gun, pork eating anti-israel jewish friends, then I've had ones that own many guns, don't pussy foot and are not annoying whiners.

I like the latter.

I Think You Mean They Are Social Liberals

True Liberals Now Called "Classical Liberals" Are Those Who Were Involved In Events Such As The French Revolution.

Classical Liberalism Falls Between Republican And Conservative On A US Scale.

I Am A Classical Liberal, And It Frustrates Me That That American Liberals Hijacked My Parties Name And Follow A Path Directly Opposite Of True Liberalism.
Now I Have To Attach Classical Onto My Party Name Or People Think I Am A Leftist.

Red
03-20-2008, 04:51 PM
Correct, I do mean social liberals.

Both parties have been hijacked by today's turd sandwiches and douches

*Queen VenomousFate*
03-20-2008, 04:52 PM
Correct, I do mean social liberals.

Both parties have been hijacked by today's turd sandwiches and douches

So True, I Only Wish The Classical Liberal Party Still Existed As A Functionall Party.

LegalSmash
03-20-2008, 04:56 PM
^ thanks for quoting me from another post. BTW, Not Every Word Needs Capitalization. Thanks.

Colon:
Legal, i guess that stuff mostly makes sense, but there wouldn't have even been an arab-israeli war if israel hadn't been created. Maybe you'd be indifferent to a change in rule, but what about when you're forced to relocate to a shantytown cause someplace across the country got bombed? It's a lot like what happened to japanese-americans during WW2. Not to mention israel's "legality by conquest" is mainly thanks to them having US support. They have what might just be the best military in the world, but there's no way for them to win any kind of serious, extended conflict on their own. Nearly all the success they enjoy can be attributed to our support (which also gives them near-unlimited leeway with the UN as we can and do veto any legislation that might hinder them).

What is the point of bringing up internment colon? its irrelevant. It seems like a plea to irrelevant emotion.

If Israel hadnt existed... but for the accident... If the bear hadnt stopped to shit he would have caught the rabbit. Shoulda Coulda Woulda.

How on earth is the Japanese internment ANYTHING like the creation of Israel? Japanese internment was a security measure taken by the US in an immediate reaction to Pearl Harbor. It sucked, and it was a violation of US citizens civil rights. (the Japs that were citizens anyways). .

How do you even reconcile one instance with the other? The Japs were through operation of law, birth, or inheritance US Citizens and had rights. The "indigenous people of Palestine sought to avoid any such a label to Avoid the responsibility of the citizen.

No such condition existed for the Palestinians... they sought to avoid taxes by claiming occupancy of the land rather than ownership. Ownership = rights attach, occupancy = jack-shit unless you are in Maryland or Massachussets. Last I checked the Middle East isnt Maryland.

Also, the weapon doesnt make the soldier, Nazi Germany learned this the hard way. Israel could have pea shooters and Mig17s and STILL house on the arabs because they have backbone, something the collective middle east lacks in warfare. The fact they had 16 year old M-1 rifles, 25+ year old submachine guns, and a couple of obsolete planes at the time of the 1948 war matters little. They were assaulted by several countries that were ultimately beaten back because they lacked the organization, strength of character, and will to win the conflict... the same things that killed the "superior" germans against a bunch of arkansas and alabama draftees.

Also you dont NEED to win a long conflict if you dont allow it to become a protracted conflict.

Also, Palestinians are not a race. I believe my learned colleague was speaking to their actual contribution on the world stage, and usefulness to the global human effort of survival and advancement.. which, like it or not, they have about as much use as Darfurians.

Captain Colon
03-20-2008, 05:00 PM
I wish we would do away with parties entirely and vote for candidates based on their individual merits instead of having stupid shit like voting for the "lesser of two evils" and not voting bipartisan being a "wasted vote"


What is the point of bringing up internment colon? its irrelevant. It seems like a plea to irrelevant emotion.
It's a similar situation with people being relocated/jailed for no real reason, IMO


Also, the weapon doesnt make the soldier, Nazi Germany learned this the hard way.
Nazi Germany had the weapons AND the soldiers, they just had a crazy moron commander-in-chief who decided to betray his most powerful ally at a bad time, so it doesnt really prove anything. Had Hitler waited to actually defeat the allies I think he would've successfully taken europe.


Also, Palestinians are not a race. I believe my learned colleague was speaking to their actual contribution on the world stage, and usefulness to the global human effort of survival and advancement.. which, like it or not, they have about as much use as Darfurians.
And israelis, if you want to be that way. I can't remember the last major advancement to mankind that came from there and they don't seem to do much but give the us some safe havens in the mideast and pester us for aid.

LitKey
03-20-2008, 05:18 PM
war make's no sence

war is all bullshit we are at war for no-reson 9/11 was pland by bush.

there is to much bullshit in the world nothen make's sence.

when the NWO comes it's all over.

NWO
new world order

you already know this, but you're an idiot easily influenced by dumb rap songs

LegalSmash
03-20-2008, 05:21 PM
You havent seen any israeli contributions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_Israel

K. Thanks. Next please.

Palestinian contributions... Pottery.

Yes... very equal.

Captain Colon
03-20-2008, 05:37 PM
Now that I think of it I guess you can't really compare...how many palestinians attended israeli (or european, american, etc.) universities for lack of any other option?

I'll give you that israel's existence may be technically legal, but do you have anything besides "palestinians are worthless uh and stuff?" Because that's all you've been saying the past couple posts.

Pottery was also far more important to humanity than particle physics is

Red
03-20-2008, 05:54 PM
I can't remember the last major advancement to mankind that came from there and they don't seem to do much but give the us some safe havens in the mideast and pester us for aid.

Combined with your last post...wow.

matt 187
03-20-2008, 05:56 PM
you already know this, but you're an idiot easily influenced by dumb rap songs

lol but i already knew this ^^ i lisin to more thing's then just rap

LegalSmash
03-20-2008, 05:58 PM
Dude, the above legal arguments are all that matter. I could not care less for the "human" element. Im not a doctor. I know that people that are "on the regular" world players are being wrongfully attacked by jealous, desperate "indigenous people of the land" (as they sought to be to avoid taxation). It has nothing to do with them being "worthless", nor have I said them so, rather it was you that seeks to "if the state wasnt ever created" seeking to relegate them to non-existence, because it is the only way that palestinians can lay stake or claim to the land otherwise. I really think assuming arguendo, even if they HADN'T existed, some OTHER group would have done the exact same thing.

Pottery and philosophy and heart wrenchingly bad cinema has its values to yuppies that go "oh how interesting" and then dismiss it as "indigenous art" these are the same people that will vote for obama because he is well groomed and articulate.

I think it is you here, that seeks to devalue a people because the group you choose to champion here have little to no discernable positive qualities that compare to the other group... I dont look at people for their person, but for what they are worth monetarily and in the long run to humanity. Trying to plead to my emotions gets you about as far as a straight man trying to get with rosie o'donnel.

BTW, jews were not always so well educated... what they have however, is group solidarity, self sufficiency, and they Value education, rather than condemning it against the will of the moon god. You seek education, not everywhere is it so readily available.. especially higher education.

Italian Jew
03-20-2008, 06:09 PM
Wu Tang!!!

Captain Colon
03-20-2008, 06:25 PM
It has nothing to do with them being "worthless", nor have I said them so,

Also, Palestinians are not a race. I believe my learned colleague was speaking to their actual contribution on the world stage, and usefulness to the global human effort of survival and advancement.. which, like it or not, they have about as much use as Darfurians.
Care to elaborate as to what level of worth Darfurians have, so that I won't continue misinterpreting the comparison?


Dude, the above legal arguments are all that matter.
All that matter to you, you mean :P But you provided arguments that adequately support your case as its important to you, and I'll give you points for admitting to being a money-grubbing asshole.


Pottery and philosophy and heart wrenchingly bad cinema has its values to yuppies that go "oh how interesting" and then dismiss it as "indigenous art" these are the same people that will vote for obama because he is well groomed and articulate.
Actually the people most interested in pottery are academics, as it's where a pretty big portion of our knowledge of historical cultures comes from. It's also one of the only methods of dating cultures with no writing system or calendar system.

All your precious laws are based on philosophy, I'm pretty sure you aren't so dumb as to not know that even if you're not interested in the theory behind the laws.


I think it is you here, that seeks to devalue a people because the group you choose to champion here have little to no discernable positive qualities that compare to the other group...
No, it isn't. Nowhere did I try to "devalue" any group. I merely tried to refute your attempts to put a group on a pedestal.

I dont look at people for their person, but for what they are worth monetarily and in the long run to humanity.
But their person is going to be directly related to what they are worth to humanity. Humans are social creatures and there is no way to accurately measure someone's worth to society without considering their person. Even if it's not important to you, it is important to the majority of people, so by ignoring the "human factor" you're not accurately judging people. Unless you're just talking about personal relationships and that you pick your friends by how much they are worth to society.

Trying to plead to my emotions gets you about as far as a straight man trying to get with rosie o'donnel.
I always hear people say this but I have yet to see someone say it who hasn't gotten riled up about something. It usually tends to be some unnecessary addition that people throw in there to make themselves sound "rational" when they just aren't making much sense at all. Which you aren't considering you just implied that muslims are against education and that isn't the first ridiculously ignorant thing you've said or implied.

LegalSmash
03-20-2008, 07:30 PM
Care to elaborate as to what level of worth Darfurians have, so that I won't continue misinterpreting the comparison?

They are not worth millions of dollars of foreign aid when history shows us that starving africans will continue to enslave, eat, and kill other starving africans... this area of the world was better off under british rule or prior to then, when they were all in seperate tribes and not in "countries". Since this cant be undone at this point, I wont dwell on the shoulda coulda woulda of it all. Tossing aid at the area indiscriminately will do nothing, just cost us money. If the rest of the world wants to act as a ward for the great african accident... i mean continent, they can. I prefer that my tax dollars go to other asshole American citizens that prefer not to work or actually have problems sufficient to need my aid. God knows we have more than enough desperately poor helpless people here. Also, considering the fact that the large problem is caused by religious strife, namely muslims killing other groups of people, I prefer not to aid at all, as the world needs to see the result of rampant over-islamification and MAYBE THEN they would smarten up and curb this unfortunate problem the world is suffering from.


All that matter to you, you mean :P But you provided arguments that adequately support your case as its important to you, and I'll give you points for admitting to being a money-grubbing asshole.

I am not even going to hide it nor do i believe it right to... money IS the major issue. To think otherwise is essentially to lie to oneself, that or your parents foot your bill for you.

Considering your arguments hold about as much water as a colander, I'll let your insult slide. My arguments are based in what matters in the long run... logic, the applicable law, and financial considerations.That is what makes the world go 'round... money, law, order. You can go toot your touchy feely lets hug the lepers tripe all you like, but it will get you about as far as a fat chick past a pizza buffet outside of the peace corps.



Actually the people most interested in pottery are academics, as it's where a pretty big portion of our knowledge of historical cultures comes from. It's also one of the only methods of dating cultures with no writing system or calendar system.

Yes, the same academics that warm themselves with their smugness, live rather well, and can make fleeting elitist comments about "what we need to do". Cultures with no writing system are not really all that relevant to the current state of affairs. Furthermore, Im sure that their pottery is quite lovely... if it makes you feel better. I'm sure it will cure cancer, or solve world hunger, or... wait... its a fucking bowl.

However, if you like, I'll let you stay in the archeology section of the Borders, where you and your friends can sip lattes while you read about the indigenous cultures of the ______, and ill go do something useful... like get a marketable degree and add to the GDP.


All your precious laws are based on philosophy, I'm pretty sure you aren't so dumb as to not know that even if you're not interested in the theory behind the laws.



I know the theory behind the substance of my craft. I don't need to ponder the various meanings of it, I do something else... use it for effect. Let me know when the philosophy majors of the world will be getting around to doing that one. I'll be waiting in hell with ice water. I understand and utilize that "philosophy" as you like to call it to do something useful, not fan my ass and roll joints with it. When their "philosophy" is alleviating another person's problem, you can let me know about their philosophy. Until then, put it back into the same section with the self helps and sexual discovery books. Again, insults get you nowhere timmy, I may have to put you on time out...


But their person is going to be directly related to what they are worth to humanity. Humans are social creatures and there is no way to accurately measure someone's worth to society without considering their person. Even if it's not important to you, it is important to the majority of people, so by ignoring the "human factor" you're not accurately judging people. Unless you're just talking about personal relationships and that you pick your friends by how much they are worth to society.

I do not need to consider every single person in a nation, clan, tribe to make a decision based on their policies, or their history. If you want to be subjective and ascertain the need, value, use of EACH person to pretend you have a point, have a nice time... I'll be busy doing something worthwhile... again.

BTW I do pick friends based on usefulness. I'm not deluded enough to believe that rainbow coalition bullshit.




I always hear people say this but I have yet to see someone say it who hasn't gotten riled up about something. It usually tends to be some unnecessary addition that people throw in there to make themselves sound "rational" when they just aren't making much sense at all.
Which you aren't considering you just implied that muslims are against education and that isn't the first ridiculously ignorant thing you've said or implied.

Actually I said PALESTINIANS... a 3rd world "place", not the Muslim civilizations. Read a little further in your philosophy and pottery book and you'll learn about the idea of context. The Current incarnation of "islamic civilization" (reference to moon god) is rather one sided on education issues... men can seek certain education, women are kept in the dark to a large degree.. Yes, granted they have previously been at the forefront of the world, generally between 660 AD and about 1500 AD, after that, they kind of skated. Now, they've honestly regressed. Learn to read, notice contextual clues, THEN spout your schpeel.

Also, before you go and start recycling your tired "feel a little" bullshit, go home get a pad and a pen, think real hard and come up with actual, credible, arguments, preferrably based on precedents or established ideas and principles and then come say something. Whinnying, crying, insulting me is going to get you nowhere.

Although insults and screams of "materialist fascist" seems to be the calling card of the liberal when cornered with logic.

Captain Colon
03-20-2008, 07:51 PM
This might hurt you but I may just end up making more money with my degree than you, unless you start your own practice that ends up particularly successful :( But then, I can always start my own business that would make way more money than you ever could.


Then I'll donate it it all to charity just to piss you off :D

If I wanted to insult you I'd just call you an idiot, and I DO think you're an idiot and I'm sure you just hide behind your rationalizations because your mom never hugged you enough or whatever.

Italian Jew
03-20-2008, 08:03 PM
ummm....no need for name calling. This is a political discussion not some childish insult contest. If you want that, go to another forum section. None of this Ad Hominem BS.

Legal, stop generalizing liberals; they are not all dumb.

It does not matter how much money you make. If you took a job for money then you are already fucked. Stop pretending...not impressing anybody here

Captain Colon
03-20-2008, 08:20 PM
None of this Ad Hominem BS.
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

Please give Ad Hominem the respect it deserves! :O

phatman76
03-20-2008, 10:49 PM
Okay, you guys are getting bogged down in semantics. When one of them shoots a homemade rocket into your town, you have a right to run over their town with tanks. Period. Anyone who tries to stop you is the enemy. That is how the USA acts, and that is how Israel should act. The U.N., your perceived values, and all the lawyers and aid in the world don't matter. Self defense is the ultimate goal of government.

Red
03-20-2008, 11:47 PM
This might hurt you but I may just end up making more money with my degree than you, unless you start your own practice that ends up particularly successful :( But then, I can always start my own business that would make way more money than you ever could.


Then I'll donate it it all to charity just to piss you off :D



And you may just not. pointless post.

I also highly doubt you'll donate it all to fucking charity.

Captain Colon
03-21-2008, 12:18 AM
thanks red, i forgot you know me better than i do...i only have a couple receipts from last year but i can show you those if it'll make you feel better :rolleyes: god forbid someone actually gives what they don't need to someone who does need it


and actually it's more of a "most likely will" than a "may will" but i didn't want to bruise his ego TOO badly, it seems very delicate

LegalSmash
03-21-2008, 12:19 AM
Red. Its the hip thing to do apparently.

phat's got it right IMHO, rocket attack on town = destroy their town. If they dont like it, stop shooting the blooming rockets.

With all due respect, and this is not an insult, but I dont really care what you do, or for that matter how much you make. I sincerely hope you do well in your career, I know that I love what I do and plan to, because I've literally busted ass for the past 20 to get here.

I will say that you lack the ability to form a cogent argument, and when debunked, you retreat to insults and belittlements, which is pretty sad, considering you are allegedly the age of a college student... I'd expect that from my four year old cousin... not even from my 9 year old niece. That being said, learn to debate civilly rather than immediately engaging in mudslinging.

Captain Colon
03-21-2008, 12:34 AM
BTW, I dont really care what you do, or for that matter how much you make. I sincerely hope you do well in your career, I know that I love what I do and plan to. I will say that you lack the ability to form a cogent argument, and when debunked, you retreat to insults and belittlements, which is pretty sad, considering you are allegedly the age of a college student... I'd expect that from my four year old cousin... not even from my 9 year old niece. That being said, learn to debate civilly rather than immediately engaging in mudslinging.
There's no point in debating seriously on an issue I don't care about when nobody's opinion is going to change, so it might as well be entertaining. I got the facts I wanted regarding their legal status and you're the one who started trying to tell me I was "trying to appeal to your emotion" (I have schioid personality disorder, there's quite literally nothing I could care less about than your emotions) which you apparently don't have and whatever other BS.


I'll apologize for feeding you though since you seem pretty level-headed elsewhere.

Italian Jew
03-21-2008, 11:18 AM
Captain Colon, stfu before I demote you! :P

This is for civilized discussion as others have previously stated. Don't bring lame 2nd grade BS flaming here. If you need to, PM LegalSmash about your "entertaining" argument. Your posts are a plague upon my brain!!! Legal's make my head hurt sometimes understanding most of it and getting bored and deciding to do something else rather than finish it. I do finish his later though...can;t read all of what he says in one setting. I might have mild ADD, but hey, who doesn't?

Captain Colon
03-21-2008, 11:38 AM
i don't D:

also banned

there's little civilized discussion to be had on a topic with people who think "liberal" or "conservative" are insults.

Italian Jew
03-21-2008, 11:46 AM
just the nicknames. You can call them liberal or conservative, just not bleeding heart or anything like that because it is too generalizing and you come off as an asshole who doesn't know anything.

VirDeBello
03-21-2008, 12:11 PM
I forgot.......what is the topic of this post?
I was gonna post something but then I was like shit.....what are we supposed to be debating or talking aboot? lmao

Here are my simple opinions. I won't use big words or go into advance shit since I ain't that much of a smarty pants lol

For you to live in peace, you must have war. It is the rule to all things in life. If you are weak, you die. Period. Humans are the only exception to this rule and I kinda wish we weren't. Now when I refer to "weak" people, it is meant as lazy or just plain stupid people that want to be cared for and not do a damn thing for themselves. They will never achieve anything in life and I'll be damned if I let those kinda people try to stop me from achieving my goals. Don't care who it is, whether its my best friend or family, I'll leave you behind or some extreme latter. As for people that just decide to kill each other in an endless war, let them do just that, let them die. If they try to drag us into their war, we will end that war for them permanently and we will win. Now I do agree with helping a country that can't not defend itself properly if they are attacked but if they are just gonna be a burden to us and not help us out on the long run then let them get conquered. Its the little simple rules to surviving. Heartless yes, inhumane maybe but it will work and has.

Captain Colon
03-21-2008, 12:38 PM
just the nicknames. You can call them liberal or conservative, just not bleeding heart or anything like that because it is too generalizing and you come off as an asshole who doesn't know anything.
Using the terms at all to try and pigeonhole someone makes you a stupid asshole, because they're two incredibly broad and generic terms that hardly even have meaning anymore. I support the right to self-defense and the means to do so; I support the death penalty; I support the legalization of ALL drugs; I support finishing what we started in Iraq as best we can, but I also support getting out of the middle east and staying out (although non-interventionist foreign policy is common between a lot of liberal AND conservative folk); I support a non-profit universal health care system for everyone; I think the rich should be taxed less. Am I a granola-chugging hippie or an enron-fellating old fossil?

For you to live in peace, you must have war. It is the rule to all things in life.
Not quite correct...the THREAT of war is what's needed for peace (see MAD). It's when people or nations no longer fear retaliation that you start to see aggression.

Other than that I mostly agree with your post, except you can't really judge if someone "wants to be taken care of and not do anything for themselves" without knowing them personally.

James
03-21-2008, 02:03 PM
I forgot.......what is the topic of this post?
I was gonna post something but then I was like shit.....what are we supposed to be debating or talking aboot? lmao

Here are my simple opinions. I won't use big words or go into advance shit since I ain't that much of a smarty pants lol

For you to live in peace, you must have war. It is the rule to all things in life. If you are weak, you die. Period. Humans are the only exception to this rule and I kinda wish we weren't. Now when I refer to "weak" people, it is meant as lazy or just plain stupid people that want to be cared for and not do a damn thing for themselves. They will never achieve anything in life and I'll be damned if I let those kinda people try to stop me from achieving my goals. Don't care who it is, whether its my best friend or family, I'll leave you behind or some extreme latter. As for people that just decide to kill each other in an endless war, let them do just that, let them die. If they try to drag us into their war, we will end that war for them permanently and we will win. Now I do agree with helping a country that can't not defend itself properly if they are attacked but if they are just gonna be a burden to us and not help us out on the long run then let them get conquered. Its the little simple rules to surviving. Heartless yes, inhumane maybe but it will work and has.

Well, since George Bush IS stupid, how come he has *achieved* becoming president?
Oh, and.. maybe Bush should be left behind then.

VirDeBello
03-21-2008, 03:06 PM
Depends what your definition of stupid is. He has graduated from colleges and universities most of us have never or probably will. And yeah you can say, "Oh his daddy paid for him to pass his classes." but atleast show some proof of that happening and to my knowledge I don't think that happened. Yes he may not be a great public speaker and may present himself as an "idiot" but other then that. I don't think he is stupid or an idiot. As for becoming president you can ask the people that voted for him, perhaps they are just as stupid? I don't view him as the worst president ever like some people say nor do I hold him as the best president.

War is needed for peace. If you cause war with another country and win, you will have peace for a time period after the victory. It may be a couple months of peace or years. Well now that I think aboot it, we are both correct eh? lol

As for knowing whether they "want to be taken care of and not do anything for themselves" part. You could just see what they have done with their money and bills. (From a government stand point, of course) Look at their bills, transactions and what not and see what they are doing with their welfare checks and money they earn. If you live in America, there is no way you should be poor. There is absolutely no excuse. There are way too many opportunities for you to earn money and go to college and earn a decent living. I know people that decide to spend their money on luxuries and then say "Oh snap, I gots to pay my bills yo." If you put your mind on a better living and focus on it, you will have a better life. If they would just decide to not buy that new muffler or not pay for that satellite tv then they could have those luxuries later in life when they have more financial freedom. If so many other people have come from different countries around the world and have gone from rags to riches then there is no excuse why you can't do it either. And I especially hate when people (mostly blacks and Hispanics) say they can't succeed in life because of the "white man". Its the biggest bullshit ever and its people like that I consider to be "weak" because then we gotta pay for their laziness since their ass can't hold a freakin' job and then they start spreading word that its not their fault they are poor, that its the white man. Then everyone else gits the same idea and thats why we have drug dealers and just lazy people relying on welfare because they are looking for an easy way out. It tends to make me a bit upset, just a BIT though......

=\

Italian Jew
03-21-2008, 03:43 PM
He got into those colleges cuz of his daddy. Just listen to what he says. he obviously didn't do too well in English or Math.

Captain Colon
03-21-2008, 09:15 PM
Depends what your definition of stupid is. He has graduated from colleges and universities most of us have never or probably will. And yeah you can say, "Oh his daddy paid for him to pass his classes." but atleast show some proof of that happening and to my knowledge I don't think that happened. Yes he may not be a great public speaker and may present himself as an "idiot" but other then that. I don't think he is stupid or an idiot. As for becoming president you can ask the people that voted for him, perhaps they are just as stupid? I don't view him as the worst president ever like some people say nor do I hold him as the best president.
I'm pretty sure most people's definition of stupid is "does things I don't agree with," because I've never heard anyone support their opinion with evidence other than "he sucks at speaking." I don't think he's stupid and I give him a LOT of respect for sticking to his guns as long as he has, but as an elected representative of the people that's really not what he's supposed to be doing.


He got into those colleges cuz of his daddy. Just listen to what he says. he obviously didn't do too well in English or Math.
He could PAY for those colleges cause of his daddy...the odds of him being able to pay off the admissions office to get in and then being able to pay off EVERY single professor (professors are all part of the liberal conspiracy you know, you can't just ply them with beachfront property and stock options!) to pass him through the years is exceedingly small. I'm sure there's plenty of people who have graduated from Ivy League schools that aren't good public speakers and also aren't mathematicians.


War is needed for peace. If you cause war with another country and win, you will have peace for a time period after the victory. It may be a couple months of peace or years. Well now that I think aboot it, we are both correct eh? lol
I think the Middle East is proof to the contrary :P I don't think Israel can really be considered to have ever been in a peaceful period and the actual Iraq war has been over for years now. You can also look back at Rome and see that while it did have many long periods of peace, it ended up in a century of war that finally destroyed the empire.

Italian Jew
03-21-2008, 10:59 PM
Yeah, but this idiot got elected twice...who is dumber, him or the people that voted for him?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/20/bush-claims-he-got-a-b-i_n_65171.html

Hmmm...he seems to be lying or misleading the public about his grades. And maybe his dad had nothing to do with the grades...i never said anything about paying. Just helps when your dad is in a position of power...like I don't know..PRESIDENT to change grades at a certain institution.

http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2006/11/2/2468355.html

Just pointing out something that could have very well happened, not saying that it definitely did, but don't assume Georgie boy has his hands clean.

Enjoy, and I hope you do not just claim this is a conspiracy. I am just throwing my two cents and offering something that could or could not be the truth.

Captain Colon
03-21-2008, 11:04 PM
President Bush, who earned a Bachelor's degree with a major in History at Yale, has long described himself as a 'C student.'
Not to mention he went to school while his father was just a representative of a district of a state that Yale isn't even in.

I don't really care if he did bad in school, I still don't think he's as dumb as everyone makes him out to be.

Italian Jew
03-21-2008, 11:07 PM
You will notice that the person states the change was done while George Sr. was president or after.

Captain Colon
03-21-2008, 11:21 PM
If there was any kind of foul play I'd look at the university trying to make itself look better first. Either way, he did graduate at a time when his dad didn't hold a lot of power.

Italian Jew
03-21-2008, 11:49 PM
Graduating from Yale means nothing. You can graduate from Harvard and it would mean nothing. People think that it does because back when colleges were for above average students, a degree meant something.

Repeat
03-22-2008, 12:40 AM
First and foremost, I love you all. Hooray! Don't worry, be happy.

Secondly, as CC said, GWB isn't a stupid as people make him out to be. Everyone thinks that he's a dumb ape, but just because he isn't a PERFECT speaker does not mean that he's stupid. You may not support his views on the war or economy...but that doesn't mean that his policies are stupid. It just means you don't agree with them. If one of his policies was to "Buy all of the goats in the world" then that might be stupid, but com'on guys. I find it interesting how some liberals result to name calling and slander when they disagree with people's views.



For the record, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I don't align myself with a particular party, but more so the candidate that I believe would run the country the best. I happen to feel that George W. Bush would have ran the country better than Gore or Kerry, by far as it turns out. I've met President Bush and have spoken to him for about a half an hour, and he is a very intelligent man, also very charming and sincere. By no means do I agree with all of his policies, though.

This coming election I will most likely abstain from voting because I don't like ANY of the candidates. (Maybe I'll write in Mickey Mouse, who knows.)

Captain Colon
03-22-2008, 11:30 AM
This coming election I will most likely abstain from voting because I don't like ANY of the candidates. (Maybe I'll write in Mickey Mouse, who knows.)
Would've been interesting to see what would've happened if Mike Gravel had actually had any campaign funding...he's like a lovable democrat version of Ron Paul.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Dpg5sgKB7rU Any candidate who's been in an episode of elevator HAS to be awesome!

Italian Jew
03-22-2008, 11:48 AM
Hey I wanted Stephen Colbert as a candidate, but that was not going to happen. He actually got more support than other democratic nominees in the beginning, but nowhere near any mainstream candidate for both parties.

Steel
03-22-2008, 07:28 PM
i find it funny how many americans hate GWB, but at the same time don't do anything about it. Ok, they could try to get him impeached, but guess what they do, sit on their fat asses and drive to mcdonalds. Funny how the american stereotype reigns so true.

Outside that, he did manage to convince most of the country to vote him in for president, while not being the greatest speaker, funny, I'd enjoy seeing anyone who HATES him do something even close to as great as that feat alone.

Captain Colon
03-22-2008, 07:36 PM
i find it funny how many americans hate GWB, but at the same time don't do anything about it. Ok, they could try to get him impeached, but guess what they do, sit on their fat asses and drive to mcdonalds. Funny how the american stereotype reigns so true.
I don't see how they would go about doing that, since it's Congress that has to impeach him. Constituents can write all the angry letters they want but Congress has to be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did something very much illegal. The constitution is pretty specific about which crimes are impeachable and the only ones specifically named are treason and bribery, then there's a "or other high crimes and misdemeanors" catchall.

*E* It's possible that the Iraq war, being almost certainly illegal, be considered a crime. However, the problem there is that Congress approved the decision to go to war, so the blame president can't (and shouldn't) be held solely responsible.


Outside that, he did manage to convince most of the country to vote him in for president
Actually he lost the popular vote in 2004...

broncoty
03-22-2008, 11:16 PM
All I know is he's very mildly retarded and was an alcoholic.

Can't remember where both facts come from but I've always thought them to be true.

anyone call him out on this.....?

Italian Jew
03-23-2008, 01:35 AM
Patience young grasshopper...I am sure someone will

As I do not think he is that much of what he calls retarded, he is not "president" smart if that makes any sense. I have also heard rumors of alcoholism or drug use or something like that, but I am not definitely sure of it. Probably just rumors, but you never know. We will know it all a few years from now when the History Channel releases new episodes of Presidents...

Captain Colon
03-23-2008, 02:01 AM
uh he talks about his alcoholism all the time

LitKey
03-23-2008, 02:15 AM
anyone call him out on this.....?

Yeah, I did, over Steam chat. I let him know that he was not either mildly retarded or an alcoholic, even though he did get cited for a DUI and a few other alcohol related incidents in his younger days.

broncoty
03-23-2008, 08:53 PM
uh he talks about his alcoholism all the time

have a cite for that?

Italian Jew
03-23-2008, 09:05 PM
He never said he was addicted, but he said many times in dozens of articles you can find everywhere on the web that he had a problem. Varying professionals say he may have had alcoholism while others disagree. Point is he had a problem which he may or may have not solved on his own, but it was not a horrible case of alcoholism.

broncoty
03-23-2008, 10:29 PM
He never said he was addicted, but he said many times in dozens of articles you can find everywhere on the web that he had a problem. Varying professionals say he may have had alcoholism while others disagree. Point is he had a problem which he may or may have not solved on his own, but it was not a horrible case of alcoholism.

Again if they are all over the internet, have a credible link for me?

YOU are trying to change my mind therefore YOU provide the information or you are just shooting shit.

Italian Jew
03-23-2008, 10:57 PM
ok ok ok....

http://health.yahoo.com/experts/theprinciples/90/george-bush-alcoholicpart-1

http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy1019.html

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020924Bisbort.html

I am sure you can find some other stuff if you looked, but this was a quick search and did not bother finding any Government reports (if any) on the matter.

Captain Colon
03-23-2008, 11:31 PM
He never said he was addicted
yeah i'm pretty sure that's a sign of addiction :p

broncoty
03-23-2008, 11:49 PM
ok ok ok....

http://health.yahoo.com/experts/theprinciples/90/george-bush-alcoholicpart-1

http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy1019.html

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020924Bisbort.html

I am sure you can find some other stuff if you looked, but this was a quick search and did not bother finding any Government reports (if any) on the matter.

The first article is written by a Co-founder of greenpeace. Plus he is a self proclaimed political activist, hard to be an activist and an un-biased reporter in my opinion.
Plus he makes many statements in his article that are almost slanderous, without including a citation or example.

Having observed the president's behavior in office, I wonder if he might be wrong. Perhaps not only the president, but also his administration, suffers from alcoholism. After all, arrogance and the inability to take responsibility for one's actions, classic alcoholic traits, have become trademarks of the Bush presidency. http://health.yahoo.com/experts/theprinciples/90/george-bush-alcoholicpart-1

Here is a source watch on patrick moore the author. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore.

Your second article's author does not even come up as having any sort source watch nor can I find any information on him other than he writes books and is again a self proclaimed political activist.

The first sentence of his article is

My name is Michael O and I am a recovered alcoholic. I am also a progressive political activist.

Again not the most Un-biased article out there, author is not credible.

The third article has no author that I can find, therefore from what I have learned in school and in life, it cannot be considered credible. The author is a key part of the article, I have written many scientific, engineering, and informational research papers. If my teacher will not accept the source without an author I am not.

Your fourth article again has no source watch. The author is again hugely democrat, look at his site. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/author/alan_bisbort

http://www.americanpolitics.com/WOWpowerdrunk.jpg

This fine image of our president was with the article. A great example of this guys bias.

If you want me to go on I can Italian there are dozens more reasons why these articles and authors (other than the about.com article) have the shit of secular progressives and bias pouring out of their ears. Hence those articles prove nothing but that you believe whatever you hear. Just because some guy got his article posted on the internet does not make it credible. Please take the time to do a simple sourcewatch or google search of your authors and read the articles before asking people read them it is disrespectful as I do and expect the same during a debate.

broncoty
03-24-2008, 12:05 AM
Here are some REAL articles on alcoholism an easy GOOGLE SCHOLAR search away. Written by people with phd's and in scientific journals.

http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/31/supp1/63.pdf

http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/4/333

Here are the signs and symptoms of alcoholism

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/alcohol-abuse/alcohol-abuse-and-dependence-symptoms

Pretty much the alcoholic or someone close to them has to figure out they may have alcoholism and I am pretty sure none of those authors Italian posted know the president enough to diagnose this "dry drunkenness" or alcoholism. I surely doubt they even have the credentials do be diagnosing anyone of anything. AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DIAGNOSE ANYTHING FROM A SPEECH>

Italian Jew
03-24-2008, 11:02 AM
Broncoty...listen to my words

I said he probably DID NOT have alcoholism. He had a problem with alcohol...WHICH IS WHAT BUSH BOY SAID HIMSELF. However, he said it was not a problem that required AA or stuff like that.

And we know what alcoholism is, and none of your articles deal with the fact whether Bush had it or not. Google scholar would probably not show anything relevant for it because no scientist has written a scholarly paper on involving an experiment or in a textbook. That is why I did not waste my time with it.

I took those articles to show their is a debate whether he was an alcoholic or he just had some alcohol problems. Bah, your actions just call for this...


http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7863/facepalmns0.jpg

Sorry if this offends anybody (it shouldn't) but it has to be done! XD DO NOT CRY OVER THIS PIC, WE ARE IN IT FOR THE LULZ