http://www.kvi.com/x2977.xml?ParentPageID=x3259&ContentID=x3503&Layout=KVI.xsl&AdGroupID=x3248
You’ll see a link entitled “Click Here” about a caller named Mohammed. Whether or not you “support” the war, holier-than-thou peace protesters are always fun targets. This guy just crushes this chick from “United for Peace and Justice.” Poor girl.
Holy shit, that’s great. I could do without the ad hominem berating of the peace protestor, but Mohammed makes some superb points. I especially liked “nickelodeon diplomacy,” hehehe.
Yes, excellent link. Although it does take a loooong time to download, it’s worth it.
Thanks for the link! I am curious that this thread hasn’t gotten more responses. I’m hoping some of the Dopers who feel the same way as the woman on the show will answer Mohammed’s question.
For those who don’t want to D/L the file the question to the war protester was:
“How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?”
That was brilliant. I too would like to see some of the ‘peace movement’ afficianados answer Mohammed’s questions. I have feeling we’ll get the same misdirection…
Pretty funny.
Anyone else think Mohammed’s accent was a little off?
I actually thought the best point Mohammed made was:
Then he yells at her some more.
The “little girl” name-calling was a bit much, but still, the peace protester should have answered his question, if she had an answer. She just kept dodging the question.
I thought it was hilarious comeuppance for what is an all too common occurrence: young, know-nothing morons who have no idea about the moral complexities of their Easy-Bake beliefs. And “Nickelodeon diplomacy” has a great ring to it.
Overall, it reminded me a lot of this hilarious prank phone call (warning: some Pit-worthy language), with the accent-wielding guy berating the person on the other end of the line.
Ah, the flaw in the logic of all the peace movements throughout history was finally found!
How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq? Speaking of which, how exactly will leaving Chirac in power promote peace and justice in France?
I say, nuke 'em all. I really can’t see how not doing so will pormote peace and justice.
==================
Extra credit: How exactly will media-supported demagogy promote a rational debate?
Well, instead of dodging the fucking question like the chick on the show, why don’t you give an answer? Period!
As much as I dislike the filthy horse-flesh eating sonuvabitch that is Chirac, he is the democraticaly elected leader of a democratic nation. Through the execution of his duties, peace and justice are served. If they are not, he loses his job.
Your turn, asshat. How does leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq? Or are we going to get another cheap fucking dodge?
Fair enough, I guess I wasn’t clear in my last post.
The question is phrased in a way that makes it unanswerable. Since leaving Saddam in power won’t pormote peace or justice in Iraq, I obviously can’t explain how it will promote said peace and justice.
Happy now?
And since irony obviously didn’t work here:
The question is not only incorrect, it is irrelevant. Obviously, not changing anything doesn’t promote anything.
PS - since I am asked to answer silly questions and almost threatened with punctuation, why don’t others answer my questions?
Sorry, Brutus, I didn’t see your reply when I last posted.
I admire your ability to bullshit your way through this. A couple of remarks, though:
OK. Bush and Chirac are divided about what will promote peace in Iraq. Neither are about to lose their job. What gives?
I can’t see how justice is served by Chirac, could you please elaborate?
I believe I already said that I like you, too.
See my previous post for the reply to the question.
Hmm. On the one hand, Saddam is an evil bastard. On the other, I think the time to get rid of him was one war ago, when Iraqi factions were willing to do it in return for US guns and support (not the first time the US tried this), but got dropped half-way through. On my recently installed third hand, I’ve heard that Pyong Yang sees North Korea in the Evil Trio, Bush attacking member #1, and is building up in expectation of being next.
And overall I think everything would be a whole lot nicer if every national leader went on an extended holiday saying “Don’t do anything important 'till I get back”.
Fucking Christ, how is it “unanswerable”? And why do you “answer” with asterisks" WTF? Are you saying you can’t answer without an asterisk? It’s a simple fucking question.
Or are you afraid the answer you give is not palatable to the peaceniks?
Shit on a fucking stick, it’s like pulling hairs with you.
I think I exaplained that. With asterisks. Re-read my post.
I used asterisks to stress the difference between the words “will” and “won’t”. Feel free to ignore the asterisks if you like.
The whole point was it being a hard question, wasn’t it? If it’s simple, you answer it yourself.
I don’t know where you got this idea.
Sure, but it’s not my fault. Rather, it’s the result of your logic struggling(and losing) with your emotions.
Well then , perhaps you can answer the question with something like "I believe if Saddam remains in power he will promote peace and justice by: “Your answer here”
If not, what is your point?
:smack:
I don’t think Saddam will promote peace and justice.
My points are:
Anyone else think this was Sean Hannity with a bad accent?
Well I don’t give a flying fuck about promoting peace and justice in Iraq and I’m 100% against the war. Let the Iraqis deal with their own despots. If we really do want to help them remove Hussein, there’s a hundred things we can do in that area that don’t involve a full-scale invasion.
I’m against this war because there is zero benefit for Britain as far as I can see. We risk British lives, the UN’s place in the world order, and a significant increase in Islamic terrorism, for what? Nothing. And, for some mysterious reason we’re obliged to contribute billions to ‘rebuild’ the damn place after the conflict. Well fuck that.
And even if I was deranged enough to think a war would be worthwhile in principle, I would still be against carrying it out. The will of the people is crystal clear on this issue, and in a real democracy it cannot be ignored. Apparently I don’t live in a democracy.
Perhaps the ugliest aspect of the debates (such as they are) on Iraq are the hawks pathetic pretensions to moral superiority. “He’s an evil dictator and has to go!” they cry. Well yes he is, and perhaps he should, but why didn’t you care this time last year? Or the year before that? Where did these ethical convictions suddenly spring from? If this had all kicked off as the result of a recent Halabja-style atrocity, it’d be understandable. As it is their sudden concern for the Iraqis looks (and is) completely false.