[QUOTE=Marley23]
I wonder if Leaffan only thinks Bush is “probably the exact right leader” because it’s not Leaffan’s country that Bush is leading right into a ditch.
[/QUOTE]
I doubt it. I agree with Leaffan completely and I live in the country that you allege Bush is leading into a ditch. (You’re wrong, of course, but that goes without saying.)
Good on ya, Leaffan**!**
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
I agree with Leaffan completely and I live in the country that you allege Bush is leading into a ditch. (You’re wrong, of course, but that goes without saying.)
[/QUOTE]
I’m just saying he doesn’t have to put as much effort into deluding himself as you do. But you’d have to get up pretty early in the morning to do that.
[QUOTE=dolphinboy]
As long as people consider us “the world’s policeman” the US will constantly be drawn into no win situations such as Iraq.
[/quote]
Drawn into? The US eagerly jumped in with both bloody big hobnailed boots. WWI, WWII, those they were drawn into. But the war in Iraq is entirely of the US’s own making.
Because they knew it would be counter-productive, and said so. As did GWB’s father, BTW.
They were at least trying, in their stumbling way, until the US obviated the entire process by illegally invading despite failing to win UN approval.
Are you joking? The US not only made it their own sole problem, they made the problem.
Nothing except the spurious connections Bush et al manufactured to justify getting back at the big bad boy who threatened his daddy.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I’m just saying he doesn’t have to put as much effort into deluding himself as you do. But you’d have to get up pretty early in the morning to do that.
[/QUOTE]
Boy, ya got me, there!
Such brilliant, slicing invective!
However will I cope?
(Oh, I know…easily!)
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Scylla]
Come close and listen closer. For of all the forums of the SDMB, the pit stands alone. Everywhere else people must be civil. But here, in the pit, people are allowed to call each other names and be mean.
[/QUOTE]
Ach, stuff and nonsense. The only difference is that in GD people will snidely skirt around an insult, relying instead on insinuation and implication.
In the pit, at least people have the decency to just come out and call you something rather explicitly.
Be honest with yourself, Starving, you gave me nothing to work with. It was three sentences and you didn’t say anything stupid, other than treating it as if it’s obvious that Bush is leading this country in the right direction - which is so obvious that not a whole lot of people believe it anymore.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Be honest with yourself, Starving…
[/QUOTE]
You know, roger thornhill used to call me Starvers. I sure do miss that guy!
Thanks for (ever so minutely) reminding me of him.
You sure it wasn’t Starkers?
Alright, you sumbitch! Knock it the fuck off! I nearly spewed my drink with that one. Seriously!
[QUOTE=Leaffan]
In my humble opinion, there is no conspiracy regarding the US government involvement in 9/11.
In my humble opinion, George W. Bush didn’t know about the hijacked planes.
In my humble opinion, the attacks on 9/11 were carried out by a group of fundamentalist Muslim extremists under the direction of Osama bin Laden.
In my humble opinion, Afghanistan was a breeding ground for terrorists and required our intervention.
In my humble opinion, Iraq refused to comply with UN WMD inspections on a number of occasions.
In my humble opinion, Saddam Hussein sanctioned the mass murder of Kurds under his regime.
In my humble opinion, Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorists.
In my humble opinion, the world will be a better place in years to come because of the proactive US stance on terrorism.
In my humble opinion, an earlier intervention in 1930’s Germany would have resulted in hundreds of thousands fewer casualties,
In my humble opinion, all of us were extremely upset on Sept. 11/2001, and were willing to use nuclear weapons to retaliate. Now we’re upset because it’s taking a wee bit longer than anticipated.
In my humble opinion, George Bush is probably the exact right leader, at the exact right time in history. Although I’m willing to bet Ronald Regan would have acted accordingly.
In my humble opinion, you can’t molly-coddle terrorists.
In my humble opinion, things are proceeding as they must, after 3,000 innocent lives were lost on one fine September 11 morning.
In my humble opinion, someone’s going to come back at me and tell me I’m wrong.
In my humble opinion, I wish he or she were right. But the world is a scary place and I thank the United States of America for having the fortitude to stand up to it.
In my humble opinion, I’m willing to stand by the allied forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and understand they’re fighting for our freedom, or lack of terrorism.
In my humble opinion, I’m willing to bet this post won’t be popular.
In my humble opinion, I don’t give a shit.
In my humble opinion, I think I’m in the majority.
[/QUOTE]
Since my trial account is going to expire in a few days anyway, I guess I’ll have a little fun.
You’re obviously a fucking idiot.
At the end, you say that you are in the majority. You are not in the world majority, and most likely, not even in the American majority. More and more Americans are coming to see the incredible mistakes that America has made in the “war on terror.”
Terrorism is not a significant threat to the United States. More people died of suicide than Islamic terrorism in the United States in 2001 alone. The wars in the Middle East have nothing to do with terrorism and they never will. Saddam was not a threat to the U.S., and his nation was not a significant breeding ground for terrorists (although this probably wouldn’t matter to someone who would call a Baskin & Robins run by an Arab “a breeding ground for terrorists”). The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with removing dictators (there are still dozens of devils in power around the world, but do we care?), nor were they about removing terrorists. They were about controlling dwindling oil resources, resources that are needed to keep the wasteful American way of life going.
Your argument about Hitler is irrelivent. Anyone in the world can be labeled a potential “next Hitler”, and the U.S. could invade them and let Haliburton build stuff there. Of course, this would mean a constant state of war, but that probably appeals to someone who supports King Bush.
As for knowledge of the attacks, we did have it. There were reports and intelligence sources indicating that the attacks would occur. Why didn’t we stop it? Because a few thousand Americans is nothing next to an excuse to go after some tasty oil.
The world is a worse place because of Bush’s horrible leadership, and the fact that you can’t see that makes me have little hope for humanity. Truly, I was enjoying myself until I read this post.
[QUOTE=FrantzJ]
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with removing dictators…
…They were about controlling dwindling oil resources, resources that are needed to keep the wasteful American way of life going.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
And you call Leaffan a fucking idiot?
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
And you call Leaffan a fucking idiot?
[/QUOTE]
Care to explain just what exactly you think the little stramash over in Iraq is for?
[QUOTE=Gary Kumquat]
If I want to ask the OP a question, then I will.
[/QUOTE]
You know what they say about no such thing as a stupid question. Well they’re wrong.
[QUOTE=Gary Kumquat]
Do not, however, presume for one second to accuse me of playing stupid
[/QUOTE]
yeah well I take back the part where you played stupid, for apparently you didn’t fake it. Moron.
Hey FrantzJ, you should sign up after your trial account expires. Idiotic conspiracy theories and Bush bashing all mixed up. You’ll obviously fit right in.
[QUOTE=Rune]
You know what they say about no such thing as a stupid question. Well they’re wrong.
[/QUOTE]
What a strange little person you are.
I’ll try to explain in terms that…well, that you won’t be able to follow anyway, but what the hell, maybe some of it will sink in.
The OP has posted a number of statements of opinion.
In considering the accuracy of these statements, one useful guide is to ascertain the OP’s level of knowledge.
So, it’s useful to ascertain if the OP was referring to Hussein as a “fanatical Muslim dictator” (in which case the OP appears to be very misguided) or somebody else.
Now why don’t you scuttle back to whichever remedial class is tasked with minding you during the day, and go play with some duplo or something?
[QUOTE=Gary Kumquat]
So, it’s useful to ascertain if the OP was referring to Hussein as a “fanatical Muslim dictator” (in which case the OP appears to be very misguided) or somebody else.
[/QUOTE]
From what I can tell, Saddam is in fact a Sunni Muslim. I stand by my opinion of him as being both fanatical, and dictatorial.
[QUOTE=Leaffan]
From what I can tell, Saddam is in fact a Sunni Muslim.
[/QUOTE]
Why would you just make shit up when this kind of thing is so easy to look up? I mean, does it not even bother you that your opinions aren’t grounded in fact?
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
Why would you just make shit up when this kind of thing is so easy to look up? I mean, does it not even bother you that your opinions aren’t grounded in fact?
[/QUOTE]
Why don’t you look it up?
There’s lots of evidence to support this?
[QUOTE=RedFury]
You cannot fight for human rights by destroying them. You cannot promote civil rights by eroding them. You cannot promote the rule of law by evading it. You cannot promote peace by invading other countries.
[/QUOTE]
Back before the war really got hoppin’, some Doper explained why we needed to invade. He explained of Saddam that “He skirts the law, openly defies the UN, and has WMDs and is just itching to use them.” (That’s paraphrased.) I had to ask for clarification, because I wasn’t sure it was Saddam he was talking about.
Interesting how Dubya skirted the law and openly defied the UN in order to punish someone for skirting the law and openly defying the UN.
From Leaffan’s own cites:
“most commentators say Saddam Hussein is not religious. Rather, the once avowedly secular Iraqi leader has used Islam to increase support for his regime.”
“Saddam, leader of the secular and socialist Baath party”
I’m not quite sure how to parse the concept of a fanatical secular muslim? Perhaps you could advise?
[QUOTE=Gary Kumquat]
From Leaffan’s own cites:
“most commentators say Saddam Hussein is not religious. Rather, the once avowedly secular Iraqi leader has used Islam to increase support for his regime.”
“Saddam, leader of the secular and socialist Baath party”
I’m not quite sure how to parse the concept of a fanatical secular muslim? Perhaps you could advise?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, so now you agree he’s Muslim? Good, I didn’t think you agreed with that point originally. I wasn’t debating whether or not he was secular, or Sunni, or anything. I used 3 adjectives to describe the man:
Fanatical - motivated or characterized by an extreme, uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.
Muslim - of or pertaining to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam.
Dictator - a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
I can’t see how this can be misinterpreted at all.