| thomasquinn 32989 30.12.2006 08:46 |
By handing a POW (Saddam Hussein) over to a nation where he was to be executed, the US has violated the 3rd Geneva Convention. For this there is no excuse. President George W. Bush and the supreme commander of US Armed Forces in Iraq are now both officially war criminals. Anyone now defending Bush' practices is no better than a holocaust-denier. |
| john bodega 30.12.2006 08:49 |
Sounds almost absurd, but thats how its been for some years now if you ask me.... that government had the gumption to call other people 'rogue states' when in reality they're the ones operating without any cognizance of what the rest of the world demands. Pretty stupid really. |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.12.2006 08:52 |
The US has degenerated from a superpower into a declining power, and has thus changed its attitude into that of a belligerent bully. The American people should be wise now, and reject their leaders. Bush is no democrat, and the people deserve better. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 30.12.2006 09:18 |
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Extremists are bad. On all sides. Including you. |
| Donna13 30.12.2006 09:20 |
|
| thomasquinn 32989 30.12.2006 09:20 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Extremists are bad. On all sides. Including you.Fuck you and your fascist regime, dog! I don't have blood on my hands, your 'blessed administration' does. You are no better than a nazi-sympathizer in 1942. |
| 7Innuendo7 30.12.2006 09:44 |
even Bush's most conservative supporters should grasp the concept 'reap as you sow' |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 30.12.2006 10:07 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Nice language. You prove my point for me.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Extremists are bad. On all sides. Including you.Fuck you and your fascist regime, dog! I don't have blood on my hands, your 'blessed administration' does. You are no better than a nazi-sympathizer in 1942. |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.12.2006 10:33 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote:How can I prove a point if you don't have one? All you have is "if the Republicans get out of office, the apocalypse will come" crap. You are a fascist, and you know it. I do not need to prove myself towards fascists, and so I haven't and won't. Live, or preferably die, with it.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Nice language. You prove my point for me.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Extremists are bad. On all sides. Including you.Fuck you and your fascist regime, dog! I don't have blood on my hands, your 'blessed administration' does. You are no better than a nazi-sympathizer in 1942. |
| Penetration_Guru 30.12.2006 10:56 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Extremists are bad. On all sides. Including you.I agree that extremists are bad, but how is he one for pointing out a technical accuracy? |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 30.12.2006 10:58 |
Name calling? Is that all you have? You sure do paint with a broad brush. You don't know me, don't even pretend to. All you have is your rhetoric, your name-calling, your ultra left wing psycho babble. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't tolerance of others ideals the cornerstone of the left wing? All I ever see you do here is continually embarass yourself with your rants. Carry on. Nothing I, or anyone else for that matter, say or do is going to change your mind. The only thing that can help you is for you to continue growing up. Someday, you'll look back on how you behave now and laugh at how silly you were. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 30.12.2006 10:59 |
Penetration_Guru wrote:Do you not pay attention to what he writes? I say something to disagree with his ultra left rants, and I am branded a fascist.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Extremists are bad. On all sides. Including you.I agree that extremists are bad, but how is he one for pointing out a technical accuracy? If that is not extreme, I don't know what is. |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.12.2006 11:08 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote:A damn lot, that's what he wrote. Let's break the waste of space up in bite-sized chunks. Name calling? Is that all you have?Certainly, but you do not merit a civil conversation as you have never provided anything other than propaganda. You sure do paint with a broad brush. You don't know me, don't even pretend to. All you have is your rhetoric, your name-calling, your ultra left wing psycho babble.I know your posts, which is all I am interested in, and they consist of far-right propaganda (link link most of which is selective information, and the rest is just made up. As far as your views on me expressed in your last line, they are of no more interest to me than the views of a snail on the etymology of the word 'kindergarten'. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't tolerance of others ideals the cornerstone of the left wing?Only when those 'other ideals' aren't based on hate and xenophobia as yours are (I again point to the two links provided earlier), in which you do no more than attempt to discredit anything even vaguely liberal with lies and half-truths. When reason doesn't work, I fight fire with fire. All I ever see you do here is continually embarass yourself with your rants.In your distorted view, perhaps. Sensible people, such as the person above this post of yours, notice that I am making sense at least the majority of the time. Carry on. Nothing I, or anyone else for that matter, say or do is going to change your mind. The only thing that can help you is for you to continue growing up. Someday, you'll look back on how you behave now and laugh at how silly you were.Again, your distorted views. Just because I don't listen to you, doesn't mean I don't listen to anyone else. In fact, I think I have listen to many more sensible people than you ever will. As for 'how silly you were', that just shows how much of a sad, unidealistic sack of minced meat you really are, dragging yourself through life whining about how much better it'd be if we had never come down from the trees in the first place. |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.12.2006 11:09 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote:You have misunderstood, as usual. You are a fascist for the topics you have posted yourself; yet again I point to the links provided in my previous post.Penetration_Guru wrote:Do you not pay attention to what he writes? I say something to disagree with his ultra left rants, and I am branded a fascist. If that is not extreme, I don't know what is.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Extremists are bad. On all sides. Including you.I agree that extremists are bad, but how is he one for pointing out a technical accuracy? |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 30.12.2006 11:25 |
I post two recent factual articles, articles that point out 100% truth, and I am suddenly a fascist? Wow. It appears your hatred knows no bounds. I have not, and will not, EVER stoop to the level that you do. I post things to make people think, with the hope that, someday, people will begin to think for themselves, and not get all of their information and form political views at the teet of CNN, CBS, etc. It appears at times that, even as extreme as you can be, that you think for yourself too, which is good. That said, why do you find it necessary to stoop to name calling to attempt to prove your point? That befuddles me. For someone who claims to be as enlightened as you do, the name calling brings you down a few pegs. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 30.12.2006 11:27 |
Haystacks Calhounski You are one insanely STUPID fuck. I wanted you to know that You see? That was your learned response to me simply posting an article that showed, quite plainly, that the man Pelosi was wanting to lead the intel commitee didn't know his stuff. |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.12.2006 11:29 |
An article that was slanted like hell. You should get a job with Der Sturmer, probably matches your views of objective news. Or do you find FOX to be slightly too liberally slanted for your liking? |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 30.12.2006 11:36 |
CNN too conservative? Slanted? It was the truth. I didn't make it up. Back to our point, by posting those truthful articles, that brands me a fascist? A moron? An insanely stupid fuck? Amazing. |
| sparrow 21754 30.12.2006 13:32 |
*sigh* how much longer till 2008? anyway, even if we wanted to overthrow bush, it would the same concept with saddam in a sense. so the only thing that can be said is the damage is done, theres nothing we can do and theres no turning back. no matter what move we make now its going to be wrong. the mistake started as bush going after saddam. thats shouldve been left alone and they shouldve stuck with the reason this war is happening, and stopping the terrorists. instead saddam was our distraction and now the terrorists are running rampant and theyre all over the place. noone is safe, and we arent the same world as when clinton was in office. point being: wrong desisions were made by a monkey and thers no turning back unless theres a HUGE band-aid out there. and for those who are non-american, its not as easy as it seems. you say 'hey! overthrow the government' well the democracy really is no more. we dont have a say-in anymore, and those who say we do, the first mistake was that bush found a way to weasel his way into the government. you werent here to see the circus, so hush! if it were up to me, bush wouldnt be in office, someone completely different would be in office and it wouldnt be any of the canidates that were there in 2000. i think we need another FDR or something. its tough being my age. meaning i can vote now but instead of choosing a canidate taht we think would be best, its picking the lesser evils. our voting generation is ruined. we wont know any better. i know im rambling, but caspar, again, your points arent very vaild. its fine if you have opinion but you dont really know wahts going on here. |
| Carol! the Musical 30.12.2006 13:56 |
There are certainly some very interesting views in this thread! I, myself, think Saddam deserved his death sentence. But on the other hand, I think that Thomas Quinn has a very broad vocabulary, and he should write a book because it would really sell... |
| Winter Land Man 30.12.2006 14:05 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: The US has degenerated from a superpower into a declining power, and has thus changed its attitude into that of a belligerent bully. The American people should be wise now, and reject their leaders. Bush is no democrat, and the people deserve better.That's right. He's republican! |
| Poo, again 30.12.2006 14:28 |
Bush must die. Eventually. In like... 30+ years? |
| user name 30.12.2006 14:33 |
I sometimes wonder if TQ actually knows what fascism is... Either way, I do believe that TQ has the better argument, but he argues it in such a hypocritical, ad-hominem way that it's nearly impossible to take him seriously. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 30.12.2006 14:50 |
He makes no argument.... Just a statement, followed by a string of epithets that would make the Pope blush. It is one thing to have an opinion, another to be a zealot about it. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 30.12.2006 18:49 |
Oh come on now, Caspar. This isn't news. My government has been guilty of war crimes since the beginning of the invasion into Iraq. This is just more fuel in the fire, and the government still won't get tried for it. You make a point about the decline into a beligerant bully. Anyone who has studied history has seen the way the Roman Empire became more and more aggressive as their empire began falling apart: It was a last ditch effort to hold onto control, that only drove the entire system into the ground. And people say history doesn't repeat itself. |
| Penetration_Guru 30.12.2006 18:54 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote:Yes I can read thanks. You usually can too, but have not noticed that you yourself were not branded a fascist, the regime in which you live is. And the US' ultra right wing (there, I said it) control of the media COULD be said to border on the fascistic.Penetration_Guru wrote:Do you not pay attention to what he writes? I say something to disagree with his ultra left rants, and I am branded a fascist. If that is not extreme, I don't know what is.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Extremists are bad. On all sides. Including you.I agree that extremists are bad, but how is he one for pointing out a technical accuracy? |
| eenaweena 30.12.2006 22:02 |
you're right, TQ. the US gov't is really guilty for most war crimes now. had they not invaded Iraq or even masked their invasion as "bringing peace to Iraq", everything would still be peaceful. there is something wrong with bush... thankfully he's outta there by 2008. sure, saddam's a bad man, but bush is as bad himself. i think he should be tried for committing war crimes. the world authorities haven't "arrested" or reprimanded him probably because... well, i don't know. but i think they're too chicken. |
| user name 30.12.2006 23:53 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: And people say history doesn't repeat itself.No they don't. It's a well-known, commonly accepted fact that history repeats itself, now. Edit: On topic, TQ is right. The US has violated so-and-so by such-and-such. However, his following words are quite senseless, even from the get go. A correlation between supporting Bush and denying the Holocaust? I see... Anyway, being the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, I don't think that Bush is going to suffer the wrath of international justice any time soon. I mean, seriously, no one really ever gets tried for war crimes until AFTER their party/affiliation/etc. is out of power/ostracizes them. And I'm fairly sure that the United States will retain a good lot of its power until long after he's already dead anyway. I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just saying there's no use worrying about it. What will be will be. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 30.12.2006 23:58 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:CMU HistoryGirl wrote: And people say history doesn't repeat itself.No they don't. It's a well-known, commonly accepted fact that history repeats itself, now. |
| user name 31.12.2006 00:00 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:Haha, very true. Well, technically, history does not literally repeat itself...otherwise it wouldn't be "history." But the basic themes of human nature will always present themselves until the end of our very existence.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Apparantly you've never met the history prof I work under at CMU...he's adamant that it doesn't. And I've heard people say before that it doesn't, but they are full of crap :-)CMU HistoryGirl wrote: And people say history doesn't repeat itself.No they don't. It's a well-known, commonly accepted fact that history repeats itself, now. |
| thomasquinn 32989 31.12.2006 07:43 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:You misunderstand something (hey, it's something new this time!) here. It is not a case of repetition, it's a case action->reaction. In the case of certain actions, reactions roughly follow a similar pattern. However, as circumstances and the 'human factor' are never identical, there is no such thing as a mathematical repetition, nor anything close enough to be branded as such. History never repeats itself, people just act like people.CMU HistoryGirl wrote:Haha, very true. Well, technically, history does not literally repeat itself...otherwise it wouldn't be "history." But the basic themes of human nature will always present themselves until the end of our very existence.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Apparantly you've never met the history prof I work under at CMU...he's adamant that it doesn't. And I've heard people say before that it doesn't, but they are full of crap :-)CMU HistoryGirl wrote: And people say history doesn't repeat itself.No they don't. It's a well-known, commonly accepted fact that history repeats itself, now. |
| Mr.Jingles 31.12.2006 09:23 |
Both of you guys are the most politcally biased people on this message board. No doubt about it. About handing Saddam Hussein to the new Iraqi government, that's just a minor thing compared to Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. Besides, Saddam Hussein deserved to pay for all his crimes. |
| thomasquinn 32989 31.12.2006 09:24 |
As medieval as the rest of them. If you tolerate this, you have no right to point the finger at Guantanamo. One crime is as evil as the other. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 31.12.2006 14:03 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote::-) I am aware that history doesn't literally repeat itself. There is no possible way that could happen, ever. But I agree 100% with Caspar and MusicMan on the idea of patterns. Really, all this demonstrates is how little humans have changed over the intervening centuries, between the collapse of the Roman Empire and the decline of America. You have something that people love this much, and put their heart and souls and lives into it. It is the dominant force in the world for a while, and you get spoiled into thinking it will always be that way. The whole system starts to go down the tubes, and people grab on even tighter, put their gaurds up and get all aggressive and defensive to any criticism.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:You misunderstand something (hey, it's something new this time!) here. It is not a case of repetition, it's a case action->reaction. In the case of certain actions, reactions roughly follow a similar pattern. However, as circumstances and the 'human factor' are never identical, there is no such thing as a mathematical repetition, nor anything close enough to be branded as such. History never repeats itself, people just act like people.CMU HistoryGirl wrote:Haha, very true. Well, technically, history does not literally repeat itself...otherwise it wouldn't be "history." But the basic themes of human nature will always present themselves until the end of our very existence.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Apparantly you've never met the history prof I work under at CMU...he's adamant that it doesn't. And I've heard people say before that it doesn't, but they are full of crap :-)CMU HistoryGirl wrote: And people say history doesn't repeat itself.No they don't. It's a well-known, commonly accepted fact that history repeats itself, now. As goes Rome, so goes the US. The same general reaction to the same pattern of events, only this time we have the techonology to destroy the world with it. Yipee |
| john bodega 31.12.2006 22:44 |
"There is no possible way that could happen, ever" Sure it did! George Bush.... Gulf War. George Bush.... Gulf War. If Jeb changes his name to George, we'll probably have a hat trick sometime in the future! |
| user name 01.01.2007 02:15 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Both of you guys are the most politcally biased people on this message board. No doubt about it.Huh? Me? Judging from positioning, it seems directed at me, but logically it does not seem consistent...so I'm just checking to clear this up. <b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: You misunderstand something (hey, it's something new this time!) here. It is not a case of repetition, it's a case action->reaction. In the case of certain actions, reactions roughly follow a similar pattern. However, as circumstances and the 'human factor' are never identical, there is no such thing as a mathematical repetition, nor anything close enough to be branded as such. History never repeats itself, people just act like people.I'm not sure if you were correcting me, adding to what I said, or replying directly to CMU...but just so we're on the same page: you did pretty much elaborate on what I said, and our two posts were parallel and said the same thing, yes? |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.01.2007 09:57 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:I agreed with your content, not with your phrasing. The way you put it, you implied mathematical repetition, not sequential similarity. So yes, I was criticizing YOU. Not for your ideas (that's why it was a new criticism), but for incorrect language.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: You misunderstand something (hey, it's something new this time!) here. It is not a case of repetition, it's a case action->reaction. In the case of certain actions, reactions roughly follow a similar pattern. However, as circumstances and the 'human factor' are never identical, there is no such thing as a mathematical repetition, nor anything close enough to be branded as such. History never repeats itself, people just act like people.I'm not sure if you were correcting me, adding to what I said, or replying directly to CMU...but just so we're on the same page: you did pretty much elaborate on what I said, and our two posts were parallel and said the same thing, yes? |
| user name 01.01.2007 11:43 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Ah, I apologize for being unclear. What I meant was basically what you said...that history cannot literally be repeated due to inherent circumstantial differences and such. Rather, that human nature remains consistent.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:I agreed with your content, not with your phrasing. The way you put it, you implied mathematical repetition, not sequential similarity. So yes, I was criticizing YOU. Not for your ideas (that's why it was a new criticism), but for incorrect language.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: You misunderstand something (hey, it's something new this time!) here. It is not a case of repetition, it's a case action->reaction. In the case of certain actions, reactions roughly follow a similar pattern. However, as circumstances and the 'human factor' are never identical, there is no such thing as a mathematical repetition, nor anything close enough to be branded as such. History never repeats itself, people just act like people.I'm not sure if you were correcting me, adding to what I said, or replying directly to CMU...but just so we're on the same page: you did pretty much elaborate on what I said, and our two posts were parallel and said the same thing, yes? |
| Forever88 01.01.2007 13:03 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: By handing a POW (Saddam Hussein) over to a nation where he was to be executed, the US has violated the 3rd Geneva Convention. For this there is no excuse. President George W. Bush and the supreme commander of US Armed Forces in Iraq are now both officially war criminals. Anyone now defending Bush' practices is no better than a holocaust-denier.i think ive seen you rant on just about everything now. |
| Xcess 01.01.2007 16:19 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: By handing a POW (Saddam Hussein) over to a nation where he was to be executed, the US has violated the 3rd Geneva Convention. Anyone now defending Bush' practices is no better than a holocaust-denier.And you need THIS to NOW realise that?!? Children being killed every day in the name of "freedom" and "democracy" is not reason enough for average American to realise that his country's foreign policy is only step away from Hitler's Germany? Is it a bit strange to average American that his army is on the OTHER side of the globe? What? Someone mentioned Vietnam? |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.01.2007 16:49 |
Xcess wrote:If you'd have paid attention, I have been pointing out the illegality and immorality of this war all along. However, now the Americans have committed a war-crime PUBLICALLY, they cannot deny it, and they stand by it. That makes a slight difference.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: By handing a POW (Saddam Hussein) over to a nation where he was to be executed, the US has violated the 3rd Geneva Convention. Anyone now defending Bush' practices is no better than a holocaust-denier.And you need THIS to NOW realise that?!? Children being killed every day in the name of "freedom" and "democracy" is not reason enough for average American to realise that his country's foreign policy is only step away from Hitler's Germany? Is it a bit strange to average American that his army is on the OTHER side of the globe? What? Someone mentioned Vietnam? |
| Xcess 01.01.2007 16:59 |
Sorry, my comment is not really pointed at YOU, although it seems like it is. |
| Mr.Jingles 01.01.2007 17:12 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Nope it's not you.Mr.Jingles wrote: Both of you guys are the most politcally biased people on this message board. No doubt about it.Huh? Me? Judging from positioning, it seems directed at me, but logically it does not seem consistent...so I'm just checking to clear this up. You're actually one of the best debaters on this message board. Just to clarify things let me just say that you're not the one accusing Democrats of things they haven't done yet. |
| Gr8 King Rat 01.01.2007 20:28 |
If it were up to me I'd recall every U.S soldier from around the world so that every country can fend for themselves. Thats what everyone wants, right? |
| Smitty 01.01.2007 20:34 |
TQ, you're a nutjob. That's all I wish to say. |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.01.2007 20:35 |
<b><font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY wrote: TQ, you're a nutjob. That's all I wish to say.Good for you. Feeling better now? |
| Smitty 01.01.2007 20:38 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Yes, thank you. And you?<b><font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY wrote: TQ, you're a nutjob. That's all I wish to say.Good for you. Feeling better now? |
| Gr8 King Rat 01.01.2007 21:08 |
<b><font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY wrote: TQ, you're a nutjob. That's all I wish to say.I'll second that... |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.01.2007 21:09 |
<b><font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY wrote:I do not need a forum to feel anything about myself. That's what my personality and life are for.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Yes, thank you. And you?<b><font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY wrote: TQ, you're a nutjob. That's all I wish to say.Good for you. Feeling better now? |
| deleted user 01.01.2007 21:16 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: By handing a POW (Saddam Hussein) over to a nation where he was to be executed, the US has violated the 3rd Geneva Convention. For this there is no excuse. President George W. Bush and the supreme commander of US Armed Forces in Iraq are now both officially war criminals. Anyone now defending Bush' practices is no better than a holocaust-denier.For Christ's sake, the people of his own country put him on trial and it was "their" decision to hang Saddam Hussein. And by the way, Saddam Hussein is a "war criminal." He deserved what he got. He was a tyrant; nothing more, nothing less. Now the question is: Are you a supporter of Saddam Hussein? Because if you are, you're no better than a member of the KKK or a nazi for that matter. |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.01.2007 21:24 |
<font color=#DC143C>Saint Hyperness wrote:My my. You are extremely dumb, aren't you?<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: By handing a POW (Saddam Hussein) over to a nation where he was to be executed, the US has violated the 3rd Geneva Convention. For this there is no excuse. President George W. Bush and the supreme commander of US Armed Forces in Iraq are now both officially war criminals. Anyone now defending Bush' practices is no better than a holocaust-denier.For Christ's sake, the people of his own country put him on trial and it was "their" decision to hang Saddam Hussein. And by the way, Saddam Hussein is a "war criminal." He deserved what he got. He was a tyrant; nothing more, nothing less. Now the question is: Are you a supporter of Saddam Hussein? Because if you are, you're no better than a member of the KKK or a nazi for that matter. 1) The trial was set up, conducted and rigged by political dissidents who opposed Saddam. They were and are as criminal as he is. 2) The death penalty is internationally condemned by all civilized countries (naturally, the US has it, therefore) 3) The US extradited Saddam to a country where he was sentenced to death. Saddam was a POW. Extraditing a POW to a country where he is sentenced to death is A WAR CRIME. Do you grasp that? 4) I'm a Trotskyist. Do you honestly think I would support Saddam? You have a serious problem in making the distinction between opposing two evils and rejecting one in favour of the other. In case you are too daft to even read right, I am the former category. Why do I even waste my time on people this ignorant? |
| deleted user 01.01.2007 21:34 |
I said it once, and I'll say it again. Saddam DESERVED what he got. It is only right that the people of Iraq put him on trial, after all, they were the people who had to live with his tyranny. Bush isn't responsible for what happened to Hussein, it was the Iraqi's decision. Not America's. Get it straight. George W. Bush is not an evil man. You're the ignorant one. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 01.01.2007 22:54 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Um guys? I believe that all three of us are on the same page here, and are arguing the same point. Why bother with semantics? All three of us know that the other two mean the same thing.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Ah, I apologize for being unclear. What I meant was basically what you said...that history cannot literally be repeated due to inherent circumstantial differences and such. Rather, that human nature remains consistent.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:I agreed with your content, not with your phrasing. The way you put it, you implied mathematical repetition, not sequential similarity. So yes, I was criticizing YOU. Not for your ideas (that's why it was a new criticism), but for incorrect language.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: You misunderstand something (hey, it's something new this time!) here. It is not a case of repetition, it's a case action->reaction. In the case of certain actions, reactions roughly follow a similar pattern. However, as circumstances and the 'human factor' are never identical, there is no such thing as a mathematical repetition, nor anything close enough to be branded as such. History never repeats itself, people just act like people.I'm not sure if you were correcting me, adding to what I said, or replying directly to CMU...but just so we're on the same page: you did pretty much elaborate on what I said, and our two posts were parallel and said the same thing, yes? :-) Relax and Happy New Year to you both! |
| Smitty 01.01.2007 23:01 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:I find that very hard to believe.<b><font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY wrote:I do not need a forum to feel anything about myself. That's what my personality and life are for.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Yes, thank you. And you?<b><font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY wrote: TQ, you're a nutjob. That's all I wish to say.Good for you. Feeling better now? |
| Mr.Jingles 01.01.2007 23:04 |
<font color=#DC143C>Saint Hyperness wrote: George W. Bush is not an evil man. You're the ignorant one.He's not evil, he's just fuckin' stupid. Everybody knows by now that Bush's strings are constantly being pulled by Rove and Cheney. |
| john bodega 02.01.2007 00:31 |
His hanging video is pretty fucked up. I don't think I want to see another hanging ever again... Having said that, at least it was quick! |
| user name 02.01.2007 01:21 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Aye.<font color=#DC143C>Saint Hyperness wrote: George W. Bush is not an evil man. You're the ignorant one.He's not evil, he's just fuckin' stupid. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 02.01.2007 11:21 |
Penetration_Guru wrote:Go back and read again, first page, about 16 posts in....Haystacks Calhounski wrote:Yes I can read thanks. You usually can too, but have not noticed that you yourself were not branded a fascist, the regime in which you live is. And the US' ultra right wing (there, I said it) control of the media COULD be said to border on the fascistic.Penetration_Guru wrote:Do you not pay attention to what he writes? I say something to disagree with his ultra left rants, and I am branded a fascist. If that is not extreme, I don't know what is.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Extremists are bad. On all sides. Including you.I agree that extremists are bad, but how is he one for pointing out a technical accuracy? |
| Micrówave 02.01.2007 11:49 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: By handing a POW (Saddam Hussein)Dude, get your facts straight. Saddam was no POW. We had Hitler surrounded and he shot himself. Was he a POW too? |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.01.2007 11:55 |
Micrówave wrote:Saddam had been arrested by US forces. That makes him a POW. Hitler wasn't arrested. So he wasn't a POW. It's not my problem if you don't know what a word means, find a fucking dictionary.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: By handing a POW (Saddam Hussein)Dude, get your facts straight. Saddam was no POW. We had Hitler surrounded and he shot himself. Was he a POW too? |
| Mr.Jingles 02.01.2007 12:08 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:As far as I'm concerned POWs actually go into the battlefields to fight wars.Micrówave wrote:Saddam had been arrested by US forces. That makes him a POW. Hitler wasn't arrested. So he wasn't a POW. It's not my problem if you don't know what a word means, find a fucking dictionary.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: By handing a POW (Saddam Hussein)Dude, get your facts straight. Saddam was no POW. We had Hitler surrounded and he shot himself. Was he a POW too? Saddam Hussein was nothing but another pussy just like Bush. Neither one is capable of actually putting their lives on the line to fight the wars they start. |
| Micrówave 02.01.2007 12:13 |
Apparently TQ thinks he was a war hero. |
| john bodega 02.01.2007 12:26 |
Micrówave wrote: Apparently TQ thinks he was a war hero.I don't think POW and War Hero are synonymous, at all. You're not really given the hero treatment if you're a prisoner, are you? (Unless a successful novel/movie is made about you). |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.01.2007 12:35 |
Micrówave wrote: Apparently TQ thinks he was a war hero.That just proves what your thinking is worth: squat. I hate Saddam, I hate Bush just as much, and I hate injustice even more, which is what Saddam got. Even the most injust person should get justice. It's a RIGHT. |
| deleted user 02.01.2007 12:39 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:How can you hate someone just as much as you hate a tyrannt? Talk about being ignorant.Micrówave wrote: Apparently TQ thinks he was a war hero.That just proves what your thinking is worth: squat. I hate Saddam, I hate Bush just as much, and I hate injustice even more, which is what Saddam got. Even the most injust person should get justice. It's a RIGHT. |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.01.2007 12:54 |
<font color=black>Khashoggi<h6>St. Hyper wrote:Both of them are tyrants. Where have you been? Time's most recent poll has shown that Saddam and Bin Laden are even less impopular than Bush in the US! A tiny minority still agrees with his policy. Still, he keeps going. Is that democracy, then?<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:How can you hate someone just as much as you hate a tyrannt? Talk about being ignorant.Micrówave wrote: Apparently TQ thinks he was a war hero.That just proves what your thinking is worth: squat. I hate Saddam, I hate Bush just as much, and I hate injustice even more, which is what Saddam got. Even the most injust person should get justice. It's a RIGHT. |
| Micrówave 02.01.2007 13:07 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:No it's not a RIGHT, unless you live in a country where you have that RIGHT. Iraqis didn't. Did the millions of people killed by Saddam have any RIGHTS not to die, you dimtwit?Micrówave wrote: Apparently TQ thinks he was a war hero.That just proves what your thinking is worth: squat. I hate Saddam, I hate Bush just as much, and I hate injustice even more, which is what Saddam got. Even the most injust person should get justice. It's a RIGHT. |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.01.2007 13:14 |
Micrówave wrote:They had those rights, shit-for-brains, and Saddam violated them. For that, he needed to be brought to justice, not murdered by your nazi regime and its army of would-be dictators.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:No it's not a RIGHT, unless you live in a country where you have that RIGHT. Iraqis didn't. Did the millions of people killed by Saddam have any RIGHTS not to die, you dimtwit?Micrówave wrote: Apparently TQ thinks he was a war hero.That just proves what your thinking is worth: squat. I hate Saddam, I hate Bush just as much, and I hate injustice even more, which is what Saddam got. Even the most injust person should get justice. It's a RIGHT. |
| Serry... 02.01.2007 13:25 |
First, main and the most important sign of democracy is the honest and free law-court... Not freedom of speech, freedom of assemblies, free trade etc. IMHO. |
| Micrówave 02.01.2007 13:39 |
TQ, it is you that has poo-poo for brains. I just like antagonizing you and letting yourself sound like an idiot. It was an Iraqi court that tried him, not the Colorado State District Attorney. No US officials were present at his execution. Whom are you calling nazis? |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.01.2007 13:42 |
Micrówave wrote: TQ, it is you that has poo-poo for brains. I just like antagonizing you and letting yourself sound like an idiot. It was an Iraqi court that tried him, not the Colorado State District Attorney. No US officials were present at his execution. Whom are you calling nazis?Your government who handed him over, and thus murdered him. |
| john bodega 02.01.2007 14:02 |
Micrówave wrote:Yours is the dopey stance I'm afraid. However histrionic your sparring partner seems at the moment, there's still a point.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:No it's not a RIGHT, unless you live in a country where you have that RIGHT. Iraqis didn't. Did the millions of people killed by Saddam have any RIGHTS not to die, you dimtwit?Micrówave wrote: Apparently TQ thinks he was a war hero.That just proves what your thinking is worth: squat. I hate Saddam, I hate Bush just as much, and I hate injustice even more, which is what Saddam got. Even the most injust person should get justice. It's a RIGHT. I would inquire - exactly at what stage does a violation of a human's rights become 'okay'? It was *definitely* not okay (I think) when Saddam gassed all those Kurds, right? I *definitely* do not think it was okay for those US soldiers to get burned and strung up (and then videotaped). But how is it right for us to throw around bullshit terms like 'collateral damage', hmm? Is that our right? Are we not violating peoples human right to *not get the shit bombed out of them*? Tell me how blowing up civilians (on EITHER SIDE) ever achieved anything? It did sweet fuck all in Iraq - the U.S. only caught Saddam because they got very lucky. I appeal to any sense of humanity you might have, when I ask - when, in your point of view, does it become okay to disregard human rights? Where is this line drawn? Why is it okay for us to do it? Had Saddam been rightfully dealt with, the end result would likely have been the same.... Hussein dancing at the end of a rope. It would've hurt no one to have done this lawfully and without humiliation or violation of anyones rights. Instead, we had a sham trial, frankly *primitive* people dancing around in a torture chamber and mobile phone cameras where there should not have been. I guess the thing I have the hardest time understanding is that we're 'punishing' people by hanging them. Is Saddam suffering right now? Hell no! He's dead, and in case you're a micro-cephalic (or under the age of 10), there's no Hell that he's roasting in. We've let him off, when he could be languishing in a tiny prison listening to shitty songs by My Chemical Romance, played in a loop. |
| deleted user 02.01.2007 14:07 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:What in the hell are you smoking?Micrówave wrote: TQ, it is you that has poo-poo for brains. I just like antagonizing you and letting yourself sound like an idiot. It was an Iraqi court that tried him, not the Colorado State District Attorney. No US officials were present at his execution. Whom are you calling nazis?Your government who handed him over, and thus murdered him. |
| deleted user 02.01.2007 14:10 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Go read a history book dumb ass, the United States of America is NOT a nazi regime and certainly does not have an army of would-be dictators.Micrówave wrote:They had those rights, shit-for-brains, and Saddam violated them. For that, he needed to be brought to justice, not murdered by your nazi regime and its army of would-be dictators.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:No it's not a RIGHT, unless you live in a country where you have that RIGHT. Iraqis didn't. Did the millions of people killed by Saddam have any RIGHTS not to die, you dimtwit?Micrówave wrote: Apparently TQ thinks he was a war hero.That just proves what your thinking is worth: squat. I hate Saddam, I hate Bush just as much, and I hate injustice even more, which is what Saddam got. Even the most injust person should get justice. It's a RIGHT. |
| deleted user 02.01.2007 14:15 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:George W. Bush is not a tyrant...if he were a tyrant, he'd be murdering his own people for his own entertainment or planning some world invasion. A tiny minority still agrees with his policy? Well, how do you explain all the republicans in America? That is certainly NOT a small minority! I don't give a damn what a shitty magazine says...since when does anybody believe what they read in a magazine? State your own opinions...not what you read in a magazine.<font color=black>Khashoggi<h6>St. Hyper wrote:Both of them are tyrants. Where have you been? Time's most recent poll has shown that Saddam and Bin Laden are even less impopular than Bush in the US! A tiny minority still agrees with his policy. Still, he keeps going. Is that democracy, then?<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:How can you hate someone just as much as you hate a tyrannt? Talk about being ignorant.Micrówave wrote: Apparently TQ thinks he was a war hero.That just proves what your thinking is worth: squat. I hate Saddam, I hate Bush just as much, and I hate injustice even more, which is what Saddam got. Even the most injust person should get justice. It's a RIGHT. |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.01.2007 14:19 |
Khashoggi, I am no longer arguing with you, as you are clearly not a person capable of grasping arguments and facts. Your stupidity is your problem, and I'm taking my hands off this. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 02.01.2007 14:20 |
The TQ typical response, just different curse words and such....this time he only called you stupid. |
| deleted user 02.01.2007 14:22 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Khashoggi, I am no longer arguing with you, as you are clearly not a person capable of grasping arguments and facts. Your stupidity is your problem, and I'm taking my hands off this. Oh? You're giving up all ready? Clearly you know you're wrong for making such false accusations. |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.01.2007 14:26 |
There. You've done it, you've made me respond. If that's what you call "false accusations", I will have to add "deluded" to "stupid" in the list of your defining characteristics. You are a brainwashed follower of a religious nut with the IQ of a fencepost, who got in office due to corruption (thank Jeb for that), and is turning the world into a worse shithole than it was already. |
| user name 02.01.2007 14:34 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: There. You've done it, you've made me respond. If that's what you call "false accusations", I will have to add "deluded" to "stupid" in the list of your defining characteristics. You are a brainwashed follower of a religious nut with the IQ of a fencepost, who got in office due to corruption (thank Jeb for that), and is turning the world into a worse shithole than it was already.You responded, yes, but you didn't argue any points...this is why you are losing credibility, despite perhaps being able to actually argue his points. |
| deleted user 02.01.2007 14:36 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: There. You've done it, you've made me respond. If that's what you call "false accusations", I will have to add "deluded" to "stupid" in the list of your defining characteristics. You are a brainwashed follower of a religious nut with the IQ of a fencepost, who got in office due to corruption (thank Jeb for that), and is turning the world into a worse shithole than it was already.So, let me get this staight... You think that I am a "brainwashed" follower of a religious nut with the IQ of a fencepost? Once again, what in the hell are you smoking? Get off the pipe! That my friend, was a FALSE ACCUSATION...see? You proved my point... Then you go on to say that Bush got into office due to corruption? Once again, get off the pipe! Go read a history book insead of a magazine you twit! Get some reliable resources before you start preaching about something you don't fully understand. It gets even more interesting when you said Bush turned the world into an even worse shithole. Need I remind you about 9/11? Do you even understand (or even comprehend for that matter) why our country went to war with Hussein and his followers? Imagine what this world might have been like if Bush hadn't have taken the actions he took and left Hussein in power. Think about all the people who would have died at the hands of that man...don't you get it? |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 02.01.2007 14:53 |
Saddam was a wonderful man, an inspiring leader, and a friend to the entire world....when he wasn't gassing Kurds, killing families, and such. |
| deleted user 02.01.2007 14:57 |
St. Hyper, you may want to read this : link Just in case you haven't.................. um.... right... thing. |
| deleted user 02.01.2007 15:05 |
<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: St. Hyper, you may want to read this : link Just in case you haven't.................. um.... right... thing.LMAO That was interesting...to say the least! :P |
| PieterMC 02.01.2007 15:22 |
<font color=black>Khashoggi<h6>St. Hyper wrote: Need I remind you about 9/11? Do you even understand (or even comprehend for that matter) why our country went to war with Hussein and his followers? Imagine what this world might have been like if Bush hadn't have taken the actions he took and left Hussein in power. Think about all the people who would have died at the hands of that man...don't you get it?And Saddam had exactly what to do with 9/11? What about the Crisis in Sudan? I don't see anybody going in there to help those people. At least 200,000 people have been killed and about 2.5 million people have fled their homes in the past 3 1/2 years of fighting. BTW - I also don't agree with ThomasQuinn point of view either. |
| deleted user 02.01.2007 15:45 |
PieterMC wrote:Sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough...my apologies!<font color=black>Khashoggi<h6>St. Hyper wrote: Need I remind you about 9/11? Do you even understand (or even comprehend for that matter) why our country went to war with Hussein and his followers? Imagine what this world might have been like if Bush hadn't have taken the actions he took and left Hussein in power. Think about all the people who would have died at the hands of that man...don't you get it?And Saddam had exactly what to do with 9/11? What about the Crisis in Sudan? I don't see anybody going in there to help those people. At least 200,000 people have been killed and about 2.5 million people have fled their homes in the past 3 1/2 years of fighting. BTW - I also don't agree with ThomasQuinn point of view either. What I meant was that the world was just as shitty as it was before Bush took action against Saddam and his followers. If anybody wants further reading upon the subject of Saddam's relation towards 9/11 (which their are mixed views) take a look at these articles: link link link link Obviously, you can't always believe what you read on the internet...but for what it's worth take a look. |
| john bodega 02.01.2007 21:17 |
<font color=black>Khashoggi<h6>St. Hyper wrote:George W. Bush is not a tyrant...if he were a tyrant, he'd be murdering his own people for his own entertainment or planning some world invasion.Yeah, Thomas Quinn you retard. George Bush murders OTHER people for his own entertainment! |
| Serry... 03.01.2007 11:34 |
link link |
| Micrówave 03.01.2007 12:21 |
Ok, so we were dumb enough to write some of that stuff down. Fact: The Iraqi people voted for a majority shiite (whatever) government. It was their call. The execution would have been done differently had the United States been in charge, a U.S. military spokesman said Wednesday. "But that was not our decision," U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said during a Baghdad news conference. "That was the government of Iraq's decision. This is a sovereign nation and they're going to learn from each thing they do."U.S. officials reportedly tried to delay the execution, fearing it would fuel perceptions the death of the former Iraqi dictator was more about Shiite retribution than about justice. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 03.01.2007 18:05 |
Serry Vietinhoff wrote: link linkNo "innocent until proven guilty" policy there, eh? |
| thomasquinn 32989 03.01.2007 18:24 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Sounds like the army's in charge of the White House all right...Serry Vietinhoff wrote: link linkNo "innocent until proven guilty" policy there, eh? |
| user name 03.01.2007 21:29 |
The fate which dooms every politically-based thread is upon us. Posts will now continue to be added out of order and cause chaos to the world of our "debate." |
| The Real Wizard 05.01.2007 00:33 |
<font color=black>Khashoggi<h6>St. Hyper wrote: George W. Bush is not a tyrant...if he were a tyrant, he'd be murdering his own people for his own entertainmentThis seems to be the right time to note that the number of soldiers killed in Iraq has exceeded the number of people killed in 9/11. PieterMC wrote: What about the Crisis in Sudan? I don't see anybody going in there to help those people. At least 200,000 people have been killed and about 2.5 million people have fled their homes in the past 3 1/2 years of fighting.The US doesn't need anything from Sudan, so mainstream media doesn't feel the need to inform people about this. Paris Hilton and the Broncos cornerback who was murdered seem to be in the news lately. |
| willem-jan 8923 05.01.2007 03:18 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Paris Hilton seems to be in the news lately.What's up with her then? And what's going on with this stupid quoting.... My post ends up "earlier" then the one I'm quoting :S |
| Crezchi 05.01.2007 08:37 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Dude, you need to stop talking your Anti-American SHIT! Just because we live here does NOT mean that we are responsible for everything that the House or the President does or says! Get that in your little ignorant head! You are going to get your self either hurt very badly or killed one of these days for that shit mouth of yours. Btw, go back to school. I hate GWB, but you cannot sit there and say that he is to blame for all of this! What about Mr. Blair? What about Mr. Hussein himself? Hmm, maybe there is a pattern here? The USA always bailing the rest of the puss ass countries out! And Britain stepping in because they are either afraid? Or are they fighting the same cause and effect? Honestly, you sound like a young Terrorist.magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Sounds like the army's in charge of the White House all right...Serry Vietinhoff wrote: link linkNo "innocent until proven guilty" policy there, eh? |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.01.2007 09:18 |
Stupid people irritate me, but I will be slightly gentle for a change, because I'm beginning to feel sad for them...
Crezchi wrote: Dude, you need to stop talking your Anti-American SHIT! Just because we live here does NOT mean that we are responsible for everything that the House or the President does or says! Get that in your little ignorant head!Can you read? I accused the army and the White House. Are you either of those? No you are not. Am I thus attacking you? No, I am not. It's not rocket science, even you should understand it. I'm not anti-American, but I am anti-Republican. Just like I oppose the Israeli government; does that make me anti-Jewish? I doubt it, as half my relatives and my best friend are Jewish. Same sort of analogy. If I hate A, and B lives in the same country as A, that does not mean I hate B. You are going to get your self either hurt very badly or killed one of these days for that shit mouth of yours.Is that the best you can come up with? That's your governments mentality, though, and the reason I hate them. "If you don't agree with us, you are a terrorist, so we must depose you and force our ethics onto you". It is supreme arrogance to say your system of values is better than anyone elses, especially if you're supposed to be a responsible government. Btw, go back to school.I'm at university, and getting excellent grades, thank you. I hate GWB, but you cannot sit there and say that he is to blame for all of this! What about Mr. Blair?If you'd have read the other responses I gave to the war, you'd have seen I attacked his policy as well, as he is a brainless follower. What about Mr. Hussein himself?While I was completely opposed to his regime, you will find that many more civilians die now than they ever did under his (very oppressive) regime. I am not opposed to the end of Saddam's reign, I am opposed to the means by which it took place, because many innocent people die because of it. Hmm, maybe there is a pattern here? The USA always bailing the rest of the puss ass countries out! And Britain stepping in because they are either afraid? Or are they fighting the same cause and effect?Your country is not the police force of the world. You have no right to that. The only reason your country is acting as such, is a hunger for power. The US government from Truman on has always considered it only natural that they tell everyone else how to behave, what to do, etc. Do you know who the last to do that were? The Romans. And they weren't exactly known for their civilized treatment of other peoples (unless you find genocide civilized) Honestly, you sound like a young Terrorist.That is so easy, and that is so sad to say. Anyone who doesn't agree with the US is a terrorist. That is the EXACT reason why I accuse the USA of being a semi-totalitarian state: if you are a dissident (i.e. one who does not agree with the regime), you are a dangerous terrorist who will murder people. Do you know who invented that reasoning? Joseph Goebbels. Remember him? That's right, the minister for propaganda in nazi-Germany. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 05.01.2007 10:07 |
Have to step in here guys. Actually I believe this idea of "If you are a dissident you are a dangerous terorrist that will murder people" was first originated as an idea by Alexis de Tocqueville in his critique on American Democracy (yes, he still haunts me!). Toqcueville said the danger of having a majority run things is that you get a tyranny within the majory, and then if you are a member of the minority you have no place to go to rectify any injustices done against you, because all of the governmental bodies are run by the majority. "This could only lead the miniority to incite violent means" to accomplish their goals of self-expression. Granted, it's not quite the same thing, but it's the same general idea. Groebbels took that idea and spun it into something far more violent, by pointing something like this out and then saying that it was an excuse for the majority to kill the minority. As obsessed as Nazi's were with the past (The Roman Empire, the Holy Grail, Nostradamus, etc.) I don't think any of the higher ups were capable of an original thought...most of their garbage was just recycled and repackaged from previous people. |
| Crezchi 05.01.2007 10:10 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Stupid people irritate me, but I will be slightly gentle for a change, because I'm beginning to feel sad for them...YAWN. Honestly, i could care less about you and others like you, but i must point out 1 thing here, i am of Middle Eastern Descent, not american. And another thing, you say that the USA is a bully or hungry for power? lol. The USA bailed everyone out of WWII. Do you not agree? I am not an asshole, i am just sick of people trashing the citizens of the USA for fuck heads like the Bush family. No hard feelings honestly.Crezchi wrote: Dude, you need to stop talking your Anti-American SHIT! Just because we live here does NOT mean that we are responsible for everything that the House or the President does or says! Get that in your little ignorant head!Can you read? I accused the army and the White House. Are you either of those? No you are not. Am I thus attacking you? No, I am not. It's not rocket science, even you should understand it. I'm not anti-American, but I am anti-Republican. Just like I oppose the Israeli government; does that make me anti-Jewish? I doubt it, as half my relatives and my best friend are Jewish. Same sort of analogy. If I hate A, and B lives in the same country as A, that does not mean I hate B.You are going to get your self either hurt very badly or killed one of these days for that shit mouth of yours.Is that the best you can come up with? That's your governments mentality, though, and the reason I hate them. "If you don't agree with us, you are a terrorist, so we must depose you and force our ethics onto you". It is supreme arrogance to say your system of values is better than anyone elses, especially if you're supposed to be a responsible government.Btw, go back to school.I'm at university, and getting excellent grades, thank you.I hate GWB, but you cannot sit there and say that he is to blame for all of this! What about Mr. Blair?If you'd have read the other responses I gave to the war, you'd have seen I attacked his policy as well, as he is a brainless follower.What about Mr. Hussein himself?While I was completely opposed to his regime, you will find that many more civilians die now than they ever did under his (very oppressive) regime. I am not opposed to the end of Saddam's reign, I am opposed to the means by which it took place, because many innocent people die because of it.Hmm, maybe there is a pattern here? The USA always bailing the rest of the puss ass countries out! And Britain stepping in because they are either afraid? Or are they fighting the same cause and effect?Your country is not the police force of the world. You have no right to that. The only reason your country is acting as such, is a hunger for power. The US government from Truman on has always considered it only natural that they tell everyone else how to behave, what to do, etc. Do you know who the last to do that were? The Romans. And they weren't exactly known for their civilized treatment of other peoples (unless you find genocide civilized)Honestly, you sound like a young Terrorist.That is so easy, and that is so sad to say. Anyone who doesn't agree with the US is a terrorist. That is the EXACT reason why I accuse the USA of being a semi-totalitarian state: if you are a dissident (i.e. one who does not agree with the regime), you are a dangerous terrorist who will murder people. Do you know who invented that reasoning? Joseph Goebbels. Remember him? That's right, the minister for propaganda in nazi-Germany. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.01.2007 10:15 |
A) The Russians were at least as important as the Americans. Their people died so you wouldn't get depopulated, remember that! B) I am NOT attacking the people, I am attacking the GOVERNMENT. Learn the difference or shut the hell up. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.01.2007 10:17 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Have to step in here guys. Actually I believe this idea of "If you are a dissident you are a dangerous terorrist that will murder people" was first originated as an idea by Alexis de Tocqueville in his critique on American Democracy (yes, he still haunts me!). Toqcueville said the danger of having a majority run things is that you get a tyranny within the majory, and then if you are a member of the minority you have no place to go to rectify any injustices done against you, because all of the governmental bodies are run by the majority. "This could only lead the miniority to incite violent means" to accomplish their goals of self-expression. Granted, it's not quite the same thing, but it's the same general idea. Groebbels took that idea and spun it into something far more violent, by pointing something like this out and then saying that it was an excuse for the majority to kill the minority. As obsessed as Nazi's were with the past (The Roman Empire, the Holy Grail, Nostradamus, etc.) I don't think any of the higher ups were capable of an original thought...most of their garbage was just recycled and repackaged from previous people.While I agree with you, you missed my point in the detail, but it may be I didn't make it clear enough: Goebbels made a practical way to use such a theory, i.e. propaganda, which is what Bush now uses too (in fact, the pro-Bush tv-station FOX exclusively relies on Goebbels' theories on presenting 'news' for maximum propaganda-value). |
| Serry... 05.01.2007 10:27 |
"The USA bailed everyone out of WWII" 78% of German armies were destroyed by Soviet Army. What are you talking about? Victories on the Eastern front were the turning point of the whole war. I thought it's obvious for everyone who knows history... |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.01.2007 10:29 |
Serry Vietinhoff wrote: "The USA bailed everyone out of WWII" 78% of German armies were destroyed by Soviet Army. What are you talking about? Victories on the Eastern front were the turning point of the whole war. I thought it's obvious for everyone who knows history...Exactly. The only place the Americans did it by themselves in a way, is the Pacific theater, and even there they depended on support from the (in this rare case) western side. |
| john bodega 05.01.2007 11:27 |
"The USA bailed everyone out of WWII." Nah, Britain owes more to the determination of Douglas Bader and his kind. Why is it that those guys get overlooked in favour of crap like Pearl Harbour? |
| AspiringPhilosophe 05.01.2007 12:27 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "The USA bailed everyone out of WWII." Nah, Britain owes more to the determination of Douglas Bader and his kind. Why is it that those guys get overlooked in favour of crap like Pearl Harbour?Because Pearl Harbor makes a better, more romantic story. That's the way they want to present it...Here were the Americans, minding their own business and offering some help to our allies when they needed it, and WE got BOMBED! That killed numerous innocent people, so we got pissed, went over and kicked the shit out of everybody. May make a decent screenplay, but it's not accurate. Every culture in the world is guilty of remembering things in the way they want to...not how it actually happend; this is called collective or cultural memory. Besides, everyone loves to be the hero, which is what 90 percent of Americans think we were in the World Wars. I wish this crap was just relegated to Hollywood, but unfortunaly it's not....even HISTORY TEXTBOOKS present it this way!! This is why I could never teach in any K-12 school in this country...they don't want to teach the kids the truth because they don't want logical thinkers...they want to perpetuate the myth, nothing more. Incidently, this is also why historians and other intellectuals aren't very highly valued in the US...we see things for the way they are, which goes contrary to the collective memory of these events. So, we are automatically scum with too much time on our hands and are all anti-American monsters. |
| Donna13 05.01.2007 13:05 |
|
| PieterMC 05.01.2007 13:09 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Goebbels made a practical way to use such a theory, i.e. propaganda, which is what Bush now uses too (in fact, the pro-Bush tv-station FOX exclusively relies on Goebbels' theories on presenting 'news' for maximum propaganda-value).As bad as Fox News is how much do you really think that it influences people in the United States? It barely gets viewing figures of more than 3 million people for any one show. This in a country of over 300 million people. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.01.2007 14:24 |
PieterMC wrote:I'm just naming an example of extra-governmental use of such propaganda.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Goebbels made a practical way to use such a theory, i.e. propaganda, which is what Bush now uses too (in fact, the pro-Bush tv-station FOX exclusively relies on Goebbels' theories on presenting 'news' for maximum propaganda-value).As bad as Fox News is how much do you really think that it influences people in the United States? It barely gets viewing figures of more than 3 million people for any one show. This in a country of over 300 million people. |
| user name 05.01.2007 23:47 |
We live in a shit world. We always have. It's not getting better or worse. Just live your life and one day you'll die and be free from it. The end. |
| deleted user 05.01.2007 23:51 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: We live in a shit world. We always have. It's not getting better or worse. Just live your life and one day you'll die and be free from it. The end.Amen. |
| Bob The Shrek 06.01.2007 08:05 |
The Russians didn't turn the tide of World War II, neither did the Americans, the British or anyone else by themselves. It was a joint effort. How would the Russians have faired in the early stages of the conflict without the convoys of materials, aircraft and armaments sent to them from the UK and USA? How about the information the Allies were able to intercept thanks to the Polish Army passing on a working Enigma machine to the British in 1939. How about the number of Axis troops that were kept away from the front lines thanks to the work of Resistance fighters in all occupied territories. How about the Norwegians stopping the manufacture and shipment of heavy water at Telemark, preventing the Nazi's aim of building atomic weapons. How about Hitler deciding to attack the Soviet Union at exactly the wrong time or the Germany Army failing to deploy it's Panzer Regiments in time during the Normandy landings, thus allowing a 2nd front to open. There are so many contributing factors that helped defeat the Axis powers that to say 'We killed xx% of the enemy' is immaterial. For instance, if the Norwegians hadn't succeeded at Telemark and Hitler got his hands on atomic weapons, the Soviets could have killed 90% of the Axis forces and the Allies would have still been screwed. At the end of the day, anyone who stood against the Nazi regime, whether it be the massed military forces of the Allies, small bands of resistance fighters or German nationals hiding Allied escaped prisoners or Jews, they should all stand proud and say 'I did my part'. |
| Donna13 06.01.2007 10:21 |
|
| Serry... 06.01.2007 11:13 |
"The whole weight of the war is on the shoulders of the Russian soldiers!" - Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, 1944 |
| Donna13 06.01.2007 11:53 |
|
| deleted user 06.01.2007 13:08 |
Serry Vietinhoff wrote: "The whole weight of the war is on the shoulders of the Russian soldiers!" - Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, 1944The russians took a lot of shit...Stalingrad anybody? I'm not siding with anybody here...it's just Stalingrad was one fucked up battle. Check it out. link Everybody did their part in the war...let's just leave it at that. I have to say, this is one of the greatest threads ever...thanks ThomasQuinn!!! No matter how different our opinions may be, I do respect you. |
| john bodega 06.01.2007 22:48 |
To have an idea of how shitty war is... My grandad (having been a navigator in a Liberator, or a Lancaster, or something) didn't want to eat brains because apparently, he saw too many of them in the war. Shit, eh? I really don't see the point of armed conflict. World leaders ought to settle their differences through karaoke or something. |
| Bob The Shrek 06.01.2007 23:58 |
'To have the United States at our side was, to me, the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won afterall!..Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder.' - Winston Churchill, December 1941 |
| Serry... 07.01.2007 02:58 |
"December 1941" << that explains a lot. And with all my respect, Bob, but comparing 20 millions of lives of our soldiers with "stopping the manufacture and shipment of heavy water at Telemark" is a little bit... err.. is there word tactlessness in English? And I'm not saying what was more (or less) important for victory, maybe it was stopping the manufacture, and all the Russians would like to change our bloody victories (i.e. lives of members of our families) in Stalingrad, Kursk, Moscow on possibility to stop shipment of heavy water and then 50 years later discuss about what was more important... And we would never care too much about lines like "The USA bailed everyone out of WWII" then... |
| AspiringPhilosophe 07.01.2007 03:22 |
OK...now the thread has apparantly degenerated into "Who did more to win the war"...and to what point and purpose? That's half of what America finds herself in trouble with, this Holier than Thou and I Saved Your Ass so Kiss Mine attitude. Why in the world would anybody want to copy that? Besides, we can't know what would have happend had the US or Russia not gotten involved, anymore than we could know what happen had the south won the civil war...it's merely a game of speculation. Fun to do, but pointless in a way. The war is over...the allies won....everyone who had a part in it should be proud. Period. |
| Serry... 07.01.2007 04:50 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: OK...now the thread has apparantly degenerated into "Who did more to win the war"...Nope. It's all about "The USA bailed everyone out of WWII". Not about who did more. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 07.01.2007 09:28 |
I see that....and I think that most people here agree that the perception that the US population (and most politicians) have that the world owes us for bailing everyone out in WWII is a flawed one because Russia did contribute a lot to the cause. But as was pointed out before, so did the Brits, resistance fighters in the occupied countries, Hitler's screw ups, etc. We've got the point...it's a flawed attitude because it's wrong. No point in beating a dead horse. |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.01.2007 10:28 |
Bob The Shrek wrote: 'To have the United States at our side was, to me, the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won afterall!..Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder.' - Winston Churchill, December 1941You may realize that in December '41, Churchill was not exactly in a position to judge the Americans' influence? You may also realize that autobiographies are considered one of the LEAST objective documents (being highly biased SECONDARY sources) by professional historians? I name John Tosh and Séan Lang (both university professors) and their book "The Pursuit Of History" as just one example discrediting autobiographies (and Churchill's example specifically) for their inaccuracy. The only thing an autobiography effectively shows, is the mind-set of the author at the time of writing, and how he would distort history, allowing one to derive the aims of the author at the time, as well as things like dominant mores at the time of writing. In short: your example is a VERY weak argument. |
| Donna13 07.01.2007 12:19 |
|
| AspiringPhilosophe 07.01.2007 13:26 |
You'd be surprised, Donna. I've heard members of my own family say it, with a straight face, right before I went to France. "They just hate us because we had to go over there and bail them out in WWII" my aunt told me. This is the same aunt I currently don't speak with anymore for other judgemental comments she's made about me and my family. I've also spoken with GA's who teach Western Civ 2 classes who have said that when they talk about Russia being an ally, students are surprised! A number of them even say, "But the US won that war, no one else!" The GA's have come to the conclusion it comes from the way the information on WWII is presented to students...primarily US based, Pearl Harbor emphasized, everyone else mentioned in passing. I once saw a history textbook for high schoolers that DIDN'T EVEN MENTION THAT THERE WERE RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS TO THE NAZI's! |
| Bob The Shrek 07.01.2007 13:37 |
TQ - my quote is not meant to be an argument - it was meant as an example of how leaders will always say 'the right thing' to bolster morale amongst Allies. Anyway, the whole point of my original post was to try and point out that no one country should be able to claim that they did the most to win the war. I apologise for somewhat helping in changing the original course of this thread. |
| Donna13 07.01.2007 14:09 |
"I apologise for somewhat helping in changing the original course of this thread." Are we in a thread? I was beginning to imagine we were all having coffee together in Paris. Or whatever people have in Paris. |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.01.2007 14:41 |
Donna13 wrote: "I apologise for somewhat helping in changing the original course of this thread." Are we in a thread? I was beginning to imagine we were all having coffee together in Paris. Or whatever people have in Paris.That would be sex. And we're definitely not having that! ;-P |
| user name 07.01.2007 15:02 |
1) Without the contribution of the United States in WWII, the war would have been lost by the allies. Should they have by chance won, they would have won by Pyrrhic proportions. 2) The United States did not make the largest contribution to the war. |
| john bodega 07.01.2007 19:59 |
""They just hate us because we had to go over there and bail them out in WWII" I've had American pals who've said that to me before... without fail, if they're under the age of 80 or whatever, I basically say to them "That's funny, I didn't see you at Normandy". |
| iGSM 08.01.2007 07:06 |
Some of us are. Right...crap. I hate this new 'Speed Dating in the Dark'. |
| 7Innuendo7 08.01.2007 09:29 |
The American Empire is no different from all the ones which preceded it. Bush will even use a dead man (Gerald Ford) to give the media a nice happy emo moment and plead for national unity before requesting a troop surge. I'm not the only one who thought in 1999/y2k GWB would make a horrific prez, and the facts bear out that position...consider the misprosecution of the war on pan-Arab nationalism (Abu Ghraib, extreme rendition, Haditha), failure to address Katrina, and the growing disparity of wealth, education, and health care between the rich and poor in the USA, which is at its worst since the 1920s. This from a president who can't even get through a National Guard stint from start to finish. Klausewitz, Sun Tzu, and Machiavelii would all take turns spanking the panty-waist frat boy who's playing commander in chief. There's a lot of innocent blood on the hands of the US Supreme Court which installed GWB. Why hold Bush responsible? He took the oath of office, not me! As for who is more successful at manipulatuing world events, Bin Laden's agenda perhaps influenced a decline in democracy in Russia, the nuclear ambition of Iran, the attacks of Hezbollah on Israel, perhaps even the ascendency of Hugo Chavez, and the terrible fighting in Africa. Forgot to mention North Korea. Not to mention the deteriorating economic condition of the United States, or the USA PATRIOT act's clear evisceration of the "inalienable" right to privacy. Then there's China's challenge to the US in 2001 with the February and April fly-bys of a 'renegade' pilot. Keep in mind, of course, the CIA trained and armed Bin Laden. I really ought to post a picture of myself in Pakistan 1990. Lies, torture, and illegal war, Mr President, how do you even keep the score? Who's the real terrorist? Now, Haystacks and friends, we're all Queen fans here and I don't really wanna beef with you, but be real! There is no just cause here for the racist war on pan-Arab nationalism. Forget calling it a war on terrorism, that's propaganda. There are no WMDs in Iraq, and US federal law prohibits targeting individual leaders of foreign countries, so the only way to explain this action (Operation Iraqi Freedom)is to recognize that secretly, Bush is anarchist and the rule of law means nothing. Who was the last living member of the Warren Commission, with the gravity-defying "magic bullet theory" ? Gerald Ford. Consider for a moment that 9/11 was inevitable... did we really need a leader with no military background? Bush is a Skull, John Kerry is a Bones. "The hangman equals death, the devil equals death, death equals death!" Republicrats all. Tora tora Urdu janta ji. Bahut tez! |
| Mr.Jingles 08.01.2007 09:53 |
I think the one who is probably laughing his ass off is Osama Bin Laden. He killed 3,000 people, and 5 years later he's pretty much ignored because the blame was put on somebody else. |
| Micrówave 08.01.2007 12:05 |
Bob The Shrek wrote: Anyway, the whole point of my original post was to try and point out that no one country should be able to claim that they did the most to win the war.Agreed, Bob. But I do think it's strange how all of you argue how Russia did more, or France, or Britain... no one mentions the war really ended when the US exploded the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They ran like little rats after that. And it saved a whole lot of Soviet lives, of which had already taken more than their share of casulties. And would the US had been able to help had the Soviets not been taking the brunt of the Nazi regime? |
| thomasquinn 32989 08.01.2007 12:59 |
Micrówave wrote:You are extremely daft in your response. I'll break it up into segments, as the whole bulk of stupidity is too much to swallow at once.Bob The Shrek wrote: Anyway, the whole point of my original post was to try and point out that no one country should be able to claim that they did the most to win the war.Agreed, Bob. But I do think it's strange how all of you argue how Russia did more, or France, or Britain... no one mentions the war really ended when the US exploded the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They ran like little rats after that. And it saved a whole lot of Soviet lives, of which had already taken more than their share of casulties. And would the US had been able to help had the Soviets not been taking the brunt of the Nazi regime? "no one mentions the war really ended when the US exploded the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima." Apart from the fact that the bombs fell the other way 'round: Japan had already prepared an unconditional surrender, but the Americans didn't know that yet, so the first bomb fell. The second one came AFTER the surrender. It was just to scare the Soviets. "They ran like little rats after that." Apart from the racist connotations (I can't expect any better from you), it's also extremely stupid. They had lost already. No one 'ran' after the bombs. "And it saved a whole lot of Soviet lives" How? They weren't taking the bulk of the Japanese force at that point. They were too busy being attacked by the British in Greece (yes, England fought its ally). Please, make sure you've got your history straight before you argue either side. |
| Serry... 08.01.2007 13:26 |
The Hiroshima bombings in August 1945 saved millions of the Soviet lives, of course! Especially since the war was over for us in May 1945..... Italy, Japan and other "nazi friends" weren't as important as Germany was for us. The Russian contribution to a victory over Japan was very insignificant in comparison with the contribution of the USA (and I'm not afraid to say it and I'm not hiding that truth behind "we all did that" philosophy...) Who wrote your history books? McCarthy? |
| thomasquinn 32989 08.01.2007 13:30 |
Serry Vietinhoff wrote: Who wrote your history books? McCarthy?I fear you may be closer to the truth than you think. |
| Maz 08.01.2007 13:39 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Please, make sure you've got your history straight before you argue either side.Take your own advice, Caspar. Japan never prepared an "unconditional surrender" as put forth at the Potsdam Conference, nor did they ever actually surrender "unconditionally." There was one very large condition to their surrender (I assume you allude to their July 1945 proposal), and it was the US that was willing to look past this condition when they accepted Japan's surrender. Although the official Japanese line, as put forth by Hirohito's August 15 address to the nation, was that Japan surrendered due to the US's bombs, the Soviet invasion of Japanese territories on August 8 played a more important role in the decision, as Hirohito's Rescript to the Navy and Army details. Japan distrusted the Soviets and wished to end the war before Russia took more land. Finally, the argument that the US dropped the second bomb in order to scare the Soviets is an old Revisionist line from the 1960s that most post-Revisionist scholars no longer follow. Academic consensus, at least among the more moderate and current post-Revisionists, is that the US dropped the bomb because of Japan's fierce resistance. Besides the military's resistance at places like Iwo Jima, the government also began to prepare its citizens on the mainland for resistance to any invasion. As George Marshall stated, both bombs were meant to shock the Japanese government into surrender. |
| Maz 08.01.2007 13:44 |
Serry Vietinhoff wrote: The Hiroshima bombings in August 1945 saved millions of the Soviet lives, of course! Especially since the war was over for us in May 1945.....Soviets attacked Japan in August 1945, in the time in between the two A-bombs. I believe that is when Russia regained control over the Sakhalin islands lost to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War. |
| Mr.Jingles 08.01.2007 14:00 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Apart from the fact that the bombs fell the other way 'round: Japan had already prepared an unconditional surrender, but the Americans didn't know that yet, so the first bomb fell. The second one came AFTER the surrender. It was just to scare the Soviets.Don't make fun of Caspar. Hirohito personally sent him an IM telling him that he was going to surrender. ...and remember kids. Always check your historical facts on CasparPedia. |
| Serry... 08.01.2007 14:03 |
Zeni wrote: Soviets attacked Japan in August 1945, in the time in between the two A-bombs. I believe that is when Russia regained control over the Sakhalin islands lost to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War.We still have "the peaceful conflict" with Japan about the Kuril islands too... Since 1945! |
| Maz 08.01.2007 14:13 |
Serry Vietinhoff wrote:I thought so, but wasn't sure. All I really know about that "conflict" are the various fishing disputes that crop up from time to time.Zeni wrote: Soviets attacked Japan in August 1945, in the time in between the two A-bombs. I believe that is when Russia regained control over the Sakhalin islands lost to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War.We still have "the peaceful conflict" with Japan about the Kuril islands too... Since 1945! |
| user name 08.01.2007 14:38 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:I LOL'd.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Apart from the fact that the bombs fell the other way 'round: Japan had already prepared an unconditional surrender, but the Americans didn't know that yet, so the first bomb fell. The second one came AFTER the surrender. It was just to scare the Soviets.Don't make fun of Caspar. Hirohito personally sent him an IM telling him that he was going to surrender. ...and remember kids. Always check your historical facts on CasparPedia. |
| thomasquinn 32989 08.01.2007 14:38 |
Zeni wrote:The only condition, the Emperor remaining in office, was a proposal made by the allies, because they realized that the Japanese would not accept them otherwise.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Please, make sure you've got your history straight before you argue either side.Take your own advice, Caspar. Japan never prepared an "unconditional surrender" as put forth at the Potsdam Conference, nor did they ever actually surrender "unconditionally." There was one very large condition to their surrender (I assume you allude to their July 1945 proposal), and it was the US that was willing to look past this condition when they accepted Japan's surrender. Although the official Japanese line, as put forth by Hirohito's August 15 address to the nation, was that Japan surrendered due to the US's bombs, the Soviet invasion of Japanese territories on August 8 played a more important role in the decision, as Hirohito's Rescript to the Navy and Army details. Japan distrusted the Soviets and wished to end the war before Russia took more land. Finally, the argument that the US dropped the second bomb in order to scare the Soviets is an old Revisionist line from the 1960s that most post-Revisionist scholars no longer follow. Academic consensus, at least among the more moderate and current post-Revisionists, is that the US dropped the bomb because of Japan's fierce resistance. Besides the military's resistance at places like Iwo Jima, the government also began to prepare its citizens on the mainland for resistance to any invasion. As George Marshall stated, both bombs were meant to shock the Japanese government into surrender. |
| Mr.Jingles 08.01.2007 15:24 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Don't forget to also check HaystackPediaMr.Jingles wrote:I LOL'd.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Apart from the fact that the bombs fell the other way 'round: Japan had already prepared an unconditional surrender, but the Americans didn't know that yet, so the first bomb fell. The second one came AFTER the surrender. It was just to scare the Soviets.Don't make fun of Caspar. Hirohito personally sent him an IM telling him that he was going to surrender. ...and remember kids. Always check your historical facts on CasparPedia. You'll find a very insightful article on how the Democrats advised Hirohito to attack Pearl Harbor at sunset. |
| PieterMC 08.01.2007 15:34 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: The only condition, the Emperor remaining in office, was a proposal made by the allies, because they realized that the Japanese would not accept them otherwise.It was a condition made by the Japanese not the allies. |
| user name 08.01.2007 15:39 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Hmmm...it's hard to make the same joke work twice. For the record, I would have LOL'd equally as much at this one if it had come first.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Don't forget to also check HaystackPedia You'll find a very insightful article on how the Democrats advised Hirohito to attack Pearl Harbor at sunset.Mr.Jingles wrote:I LOL'd.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Apart from the fact that the bombs fell the other way 'round: Japan had already prepared an unconditional surrender, but the Americans didn't know that yet, so the first bomb fell. The second one came AFTER the surrender. It was just to scare the Soviets.Don't make fun of Caspar. Hirohito personally sent him an IM telling him that he was going to surrender. ...and remember kids. Always check your historical facts on CasparPedia. |
| Maz 08.01.2007 16:29 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: The only condition, the Emperor remaining in office, was a proposal made by the allies, because they realized that the Japanese would not accept them otherwise.Oh, by all means, that is wrong, as Pieter also pointed out. The Japanese government wanted to maintain the kokutai and the Emperor was central to that. It was their intention all along, not America's. Besides, keeping the emperor, however symoblic he became after the war, and not trying him for war crimes is a pretty significant concession by the Allies, thus no "unconditional surrender." |
| Josh Henson 08.01.2007 18:21 |
Thank God they executed Saddam! Fox News was behind it, I tell you! |
| Micrówave 08.01.2007 18:31 |
Thanks for the breaking news, Hadrian. Haven't you been paying attention here?
It's TQ's History Of The World Part 47:
ThomasQuinn wrote: You are extremely daft in your response. I'll break it up into segments. ThomasQuinn wrote: too much to swallow at once."no one mentions the war really ended when the US exploded the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima." Apart from the fact that the bombs fell the other way 'round: Japan had already prepared an unconditional surrender, but the Americans didn't know that yet, so the first bomb fell. The second one came AFTER the surrender. It was just to scare the Soviets. THAT'S ONE OF THE DUMBEST RESPONSES YOU'VE COME UP WITH YET! HOW DID THE SECOND ONE SCARE THE SOVIETS AND THE FIRST DID NOT, MORON? (Soviet #1: Let's go kill the Americans with TQ) (Soviet #2: Oh Crap, they have more than one bomb) (Soviet #1: Yeah, forget that. Let's drink Vodka) "They ran like little rats after that." Apart from the racist connotations (I can't expect any better from you), it's also extremely stupid. They had lost already. No one 'ran' after the bombs. THE SHITLER DID. RIGHT INTO HIS LITTLE BUNKER AND BLEW HIS FREAKIN HEAD OFF. MAYBE HE GOT SCARED OF THE SECOND BOMB? "And it saved a whole lot of Soviet lives" How? They weren't taking the bulk of the Japanese force at that point. They were too busy being attacked by the British in Greece (yes, England fought its ally). IF THE JAPANESE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SO OVERCONFIDENT IN ATTACKING THE US, THEY WOULD HAVE INSTEAD TURNED THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SOVIETS, WHO WOULD HAVE THEN BEEN FACED WITH A TWO-FRONT ATTACK. Please, make sure you've got your history straight before you argue either side. WHY? YOU DON'T. IN FACT, I WONDER IF YOU MAKE UP HAVE THE HORSECRAP YOU SHOVEL ON HERE. YOU SURE MAKE ME FEEL SMARTER, THOUGH! |
| thomasquinn 32989 08.01.2007 19:04 |
Micrówave wrote: THAT'S ONE OF THE DUMBEST RESPONSES YOU'VE COME UP WITH YET! HOW DID THE SECOND ONE SCARE THE SOVIETS AND THE FIRST DID NOT, MORON? (Soviet #1: Let's go kill the Americans with TQ) (Soviet #2: Oh Crap, they have more than one bomb) (Soviet #1: Yeah, forget that. Let's drink Vodka)How about because Bomb #2 was Plutonium, while Bomb #1 was Uranium, and Bomb #2 was about 1.5x as strong as the original one. Would that not be scary? And would dropping an unnecessary bomb just to show how strong it is not create fear with a party that is working on one, perhaps to best you? THE SHITLER DID. RIGHT INTO HIS LITTLE BUNKER AND BLEW HIS FREAKIN HEAD OFF. MAYBE HE GOT SCARED OF THE SECOND BOMB?Hitler killed himself in APRIL '45. The bombs fell in AUGUST. Can you do the math? IF THE JAPANESE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SO OVERCONFIDENT IN ATTACKING THE US, THEY WOULD HAVE INSTEAD TURNED THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SOVIETS, WHO WOULD HAVE THEN BEEN FACED WITH A TWO-FRONT ATTACK.You don't seem to understand Japanese policy at all. They didn't want more than Manchuria. And what they wanted from the US? Their Pacific islands and no more. And that's what they took, didn't they? WHY? YOU DON'T. IN FACT, I WONDER IF YOU MAKE UP HAVE THE HORSECRAP YOU SHOVEL ON HERE. YOU SURE MAKE ME FEEL SMARTER, THOUGH!That would be really sad, as you didn't get but ONE thing right here. Check any history book you like. |
| Maz 08.01.2007 19:25 |
Caspar writes: "And would dropping an unnecessary bomb..." It was not unnecssary from the US perspective. Again, Japan did not surrender after the first bomb. Your argument that the US dropped the second bomb to scare Russia is an old and tired Revisionist argument made by those who grew angry with American foreign policy in the 1960s. More current scholarly opinion openly debates this (as I mentioned earlier and you seemed to ignore). Caspar also writes: "You don't seem to understand Japanese policy at all." Neither do you. Caspar continues: "They didn't want more than Manchuria. And what they wanted from the US? Their Pacific islands and no more. And that's what they took, didn't they?" The Greater Japanese Empire had grown steadily since the early 1900s and bristled at Western attempts to hamper their growth. By the outbreak of the Pacific theater, Japan controlled or had a strong military presence in much of East Asia like China, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, scattered islands throughout the ocean, the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies, and had their eyes on Australia. The US had the Pacific in their sphere of influence and had placed an embargo on raw materials, including oil, from entering Japan, which then spurred on Pearl Harbor in 1941. It is safe to say that most countries and colonies in the Pacific were under threat from Japan. This says nothing to their treatment of foreign prisoners and citizens such as the Comfort Women. Finally, Caspar states: "Check any history book you like." Overconfidence and bloviating gets you nowhere. ----- And for the record, Microwave does seem to overstate the threat the Soviets posed to Japan. Japan attacked the US because of the control and importance America had in the Pacific. Russia did not have a similar importance or status in the region. Japan did not trust the Soviets, but they did have a peace treaty with them (until the Soviets broke it and attacked in August 1945). |
| Maz 08.01.2007 19:28 |
Sorry, hit the wrong button. But I will use this opportunity to give a shout out to the Shrek. Howdy, Bob. |
| Lisser 08.01.2007 20:08 |
What about me beeotch??? |
| Maz 08.01.2007 20:58 |
Lisser wrote: What about me beeotch???Guilt forbids me from acknowledging your presence, at least until I get your work done first. I'm a bad, bad person, I know. |
| Lisser 08.01.2007 21:44 |
Zeni wrote:LOL, well you don't have to proof read it anymore bc the deadline is January 18th and I already submitted it. But if you still want to look it over and got any suggestions in general, I'd love to hear them. That's really what I wanted, your opinon.Lisser wrote: What about me beeotch???Guilt forbids me from acknowledging your presence, at least until I get your work done first. I'm a bad, bad person, I know. I'll let you know if I got the grant...$10,000!!!! |
| user name 08.01.2007 23:36 |
In order to be at least somewhat convincing in a debate, one must respond to the strongest argumenters, not the weakest. It's funny how often Zeni's posts are left unresponded to, and how someone in particular may have went at length to fall into Microwave's giant ad hominem trap by extensively responding to it. |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.01.2007 07:52 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: In order to be at least somewhat convincing in a debate, one must respond to the strongest argumenters, not the weakest. It's funny how often Zeni's posts are left unresponded to, and how someone in particular may have went at length to fall into Microwave's giant ad hominem trap by extensively responding to it.There is nothing to respond to; a scholar of Japanese culture who I happen to be friends with disagrees with Zeni as to the foreign policy debate; As far as the 'Revisionist' theory I present: yes, that is true. However, Zeni's slant that 'more current' studies disprove it, is quite incomplete: SOME indeed do. SOME do not. I happen to find the ones that don't disprove it more convincing, as they are fully in accorance with the facts. I feel no need to debate with Zeni, as what she presents is a highly selective reading of historic publications. She indeed has scholars on her side; as do I. However, I do not agree with her views on what is good historical research, apparently. Sadly for her, my professors do agree with mine, as I haven't failed a single research paper yet. |
| PieterMC 09.01.2007 08:17 |
I wish I could meet your professors Thomas as I have yet to find anybody that agrees with your warped view of world history. You seem intent on blaming America for every problem in the world. After living here for several years it is clear to me that your opinion of Americans is severely scewded. |
| Mr.Jingles 09.01.2007 09:13 |
Keep in fact that some college professors are into far left wing brainwashing (not all of them), and that's pretty much in every country in the world. However, here in America there are college professors who have been accused of being communists and even acused of encouraging anarchy among students from ultra conservatives groups for the simple fact that they strongly disagree with the far right. Most college professors I know lean to the left but remain moderate and respect their students ideas even though they might differ. So how do you spot a far left brainwashing college professor from a moderate? The radical leftist teaches conspiracy theories as actual facts. |
| john bodega 09.01.2007 10:30 |
"You seem intent on blaming America for every problem in the world." Thats too simple though! The fact is, we owe our problems to every 'civilised' nation in the first half of the 20th century. It happened first at the end of WWI when they screwed the Arabs out of a good deal, and then it happened again at the end of WWII when they went and handed Israel over without any real thought as to the fuss it would cause. |
| Maz 09.01.2007 11:29 |
Caspar writes: "However, I do not agree with her views on what is good historical research, apparently. Sadly for her, my professors do agree with mine, as I haven't failed a single research paper yet." *sigh* I rarely feel the need to state my academic or professional credentials for QZ, nor will I begin now. It sounds too pretentious and most QZers wouldn't care anyways. All I will say, in my defense, is that I am qualified to teach a university course on post-Meiji Japan and that my years of training have given me more opportunity to do "good historical research" than Caspar. I'm glad he's doing well, and the fact that he has yet to flunk a paper must say something. One last point for interested third party readers: I have done my best to point out historical facts likes dates, places, and people in order to make my argument more convincing. That is, after all, good historical research - verifiable facts as the foundation of an argument. Caspar, however, has not; instead he debates me with phrases like "there's nothing to respond to" or "a friend of mine disagrees." I wish he would bring in more facts because this would be a much more interesting, educating, and enjoyable thread for everyone. In the end, I will let others decide who they choose to believe and let the chips fall where they may. |
| Lisser 09.01.2007 22:00 |
For what its worth Zeni, and I won't pretend to speak for every QZer, bc I am not. But you have nothing to prove to me. Even if I didn't already personally know your professional career and background, I always enjoy your posts, your wisdom, and all that you add to the board no matter what the content. It is more than evident to me that you are very educated and accurate in what you say. Even though you are still a butt munch!!!! |
| thomasquinn 32989 10.01.2007 06:59 |
PieterMC wrote: I wish I could meet your professors Thomas as I have yet to find anybody that agrees with your warped view of world history.Go right ahead. Cleveringaplein 1, Leiden. That's off the Rapenburg. You seem intent on blaming America for every problem in the world. After living here for several years it is clear to me that your opinion of Americans is severely scewded.It is clear to ME that you cannot read; I blame your GOVERNMENT, not your people. Are you too daft or just UNWILLING to see that? |
| PieterMC 10.01.2007 08:11 |
I find it interesting that you reply to me Thomas but totally ignore Zeni's post. I think that says it all. |
| 7Innuendo7 10.01.2007 08:39 |
Once, a bunch of guys met in a private club, dressed up as Native Americans, and performed a "terrorist raid" on a British ship and tossed bales of tea into Boston Harbor. Fact or conspiracy theory? what about the USS Maine (1896?) or USS Pueblo (Vietnam era)? And of course the original Gulf War, where Hussein actually asked the US for permission 7/24/90 to invade Kuwait before actually doing so. History also has shown that members of Pres. Lincoln's cabinet approved of his execution so a puppet for the Jim Crow Reconstruction could be installed. Example of a bad conspiracy theory: the moon landings were fake. Answer: 836 lbs soil samples taken by NASA! When you run with the same group of people as your father, and his father, and so will your son, it is likely that methodology will remain the same as well. Now that's imho; but experience seems to bear it out. I don't think there's enough info to clearly say 9/11 was staged at this point, but there are some examples of physical evidence at Ground Zero that do raise the question -- esp because building #7 was not hit by a plane, but had the same characteristic heat damage at its foundation. At any rate, the voices of the families and survivors are more interesting or necessary to understand the cultural meaning of 9/11 for America. The failure to find WMD in Iraq or place Osama Bin Laden in US custody thus far also weakens the credibility of the official version for the justification of the 'war on terror.' Although Bush comes from a family deeply involved in the military intelligence community, it does not seem to be delivering worthwhile results. |
| thomasquinn 32989 10.01.2007 14:20 |
PieterMC wrote: I find it interesting that you reply to me Thomas but totally ignore Zeni's post. I think that says it all.If you'd have read my post right before that one, you'd have seen I responded to that one. Not to good at reading? |
| user name 10.01.2007 15:10 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:You also criticize the people of the United States on several occasions. You seem to dismiss all Republicans while you have a very weak view of the diverse populations which support that party. You judge political supporters by foreign policy alone, as if that were the most important and sole issue of any campaign.You seem intent on blaming America for every problem in the world. After living here for several years it is clear to me that your opinion of Americans is severely scewded.It is clear to ME that you cannot read; I blame your GOVERNMENT, not your people. Are you too daft or just UNWILLING to see that? I'm not saying you don't hold the government accountable, but you also treat supporters of said government as idiots - even the ones who have no opinion on foreign policy, or whose views are not influenced in the least bit by religion. |
| PieterMC 10.01.2007 15:32 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:And where exactly is your reply to Zeni's post where she said that she is "qualified to teach a university course on post-Meiji Japan"?PieterMC wrote: I find it interesting that you reply to me Thomas but totally ignore Zeni's post. I think that says it all.If you'd have read my post right before that one, you'd have seen I responded to that one. Not to good at reading? |
| thomasquinn 32989 10.01.2007 15:37 |
PieterMC wrote:It's not there; it's not a remark that I can do anything with. She states that, I have a scholar of Japanese on my side; sounds like a draw to me.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:And where exactly is your reply to Zeni's post where she said that she is "qualified to teach a university course on post-Meiji Japan"?PieterMC wrote: I find it interesting that you reply to me Thomas but totally ignore Zeni's post. I think that says it all.If you'd have read my post right before that one, you'd have seen I responded to that one. Not to good at reading? |
| PieterMC 10.01.2007 15:39 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:So you did not reply to it then. Perhaps you should try improving your own reading skills.PieterMC wrote:It's not there; it's not a remark that I can do anything with. She states that, I have a scholar of Japanese on my side; sounds like a draw to me.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:And where exactly is your reply to Zeni's post where she said that she is "qualified to teach a university course on post-Meiji Japan"?PieterMC wrote: I find it interesting that you reply to me Thomas but totally ignore Zeni's post. I think that says it all.If you'd have read my post right before that one, you'd have seen I responded to that one. Not to good at reading? |
| thomasquinn 32989 10.01.2007 15:51 |
PieterMC wrote:As stated, I had a reason not to reply to it. It's not that difficult to differentiate between the two.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:So you did not reply to it then. Perhaps you should try improving your own reading skills.PieterMC wrote:It's not there; it's not a remark that I can do anything with. She states that, I have a scholar of Japanese on my side; sounds like a draw to me.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:And where exactly is your reply to Zeni's post where she said that she is "qualified to teach a university course on post-Meiji Japan"?PieterMC wrote: I find it interesting that you reply to me Thomas but totally ignore Zeni's post. I think that says it all.If you'd have read my post right before that one, you'd have seen I responded to that one. Not to good at reading? |
| Maz 10.01.2007 16:18 |
It is not a "draw." Contrary to what Garfield might say, we do not learn by osmosis. |
| PieterMC 10.01.2007 16:21 |
It's more the fact that Thomas has no way to respond to Zeni so he is just going to basically ignore her post. |
| .DeaconJohn. 10.01.2007 17:27 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Not to good at reading?Not too good at grammar? |
| The Real Wizard 11.01.2007 03:17 |
.DeaconJohn. wrote:Haha... post of the day.ThomasQuinn wrote: Not to good at reading?Not too good at grammar? Sorry, Caspar! :) |
| thomasquinn 32989 11.01.2007 06:44 |
.DeaconJohn. wrote:There is a major difference between TYPO and GRAMMAR. Also, in this context, the error would've been in SPELLING and not GRAMMAR. The two words being of the same word-class, the inconsistency is in spelling/meaning, not grammar.ThomasQuinn wrote: Not to good at reading?Not too good at grammar? Having said that, it is rather pathetic to go after a single typo. Accuse me of anything you like, but even I don't do that in any case. |
| PieterMC 11.01.2007 08:52 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Apart from the fact that the bombs fell the other way 'round: Japan had already prepared an unconditional surrender, but the Americans didn't know that yet, so the first bomb fell. The second one came AFTER the surrender.- August 6, 1945 - First Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima from a B-29 flown by Col. Paul Tibbets. - August 8, 1945 - U.S.S.R. declares war on Japan then invades Manchuria. - August 9, 1945 - Second Atomic Bomb is dropped on Nagasaki from a B-29 flown by Maj. Charles Sweeney -- Emperor Hirohito and Japanese Prime Minister Suzuki then decide to seek an immediate peace with the Allies. - August 14, 1945 - Japanese accept unconditional surrender; Gen. MacArthur is appointed to head the occupation forces in Japan. - September 3, 1945 - The Japanese commander in the Philippines, Gen. Yamashita, surrenders to Gen. Wainwright at Baguio. - September 4, 1945 - Japanese troops on Wake Island surrender. - September 9, 1945 - Japanese in Korea surrender. - September 13, 1945 - Japanese in Burma surrender. |
| .DeaconJohn. 11.01.2007 13:52 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:- Fair enough. I would presume you read posts once after you type them to check for such errors though..DeaconJohn. wrote:There is a major difference between TYPO and GRAMMAR.ThomasQuinn wrote: Not to good at reading?Not too good at grammar? So, with that in mind, I have to ask... ...not too good at reading? |
| Erin 11.01.2007 14:04 |
PieterMC wrote: - August 6, 1945 - First Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima from a B-29 flown by Col. Paul Tibbets. - August 8, 1945 - U.S.S.R. declares war on Japan then invades Manchuria. - August 9, 1945 - Second Atomic Bomb is dropped on Nagasaki from a B-29 flown by Maj. Charles Sweeney -- Emperor Hirohito and Japanese Prime Minister Suzuki then decide to seek an immediate peace with the Allies. - August 14, 1945 - Japanese accept unconditional surrender; Gen. MacArthur is appointed to head the occupation forces in Japan. - September 3, 1945 - The Japanese commander in the Philippines, Gen. Yamashita, surrenders to Gen. Wainwright at Baguio. - September 4, 1945 - Japanese troops on Wake Island surrender. - September 9, 1945 - Japanese in Korea surrender. - September 13, 1945 - Japanese in Burma surrender.Wow, Pieter, I didn't know you had so much edjumacation...;-P |
| PieterMC 11.01.2007 14:17 |
Nah. I can't read apparently. |
| thomasquinn 32989 11.01.2007 15:19 |
.DeaconJohn. wrote:More like: posted without checking.ThomasQuinn wrote:- Fair enough. I would presume you read posts once after you type them to check for such errors though. So, with that in mind, I have to ask... ...not too good at reading?.DeaconJohn. wrote:There is a major difference between TYPO and GRAMMAR.ThomasQuinn wrote: Not to good at reading?Not too good at grammar? |
| Crezchi 11.01.2007 21:36 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:No actually, from all the threads i have seen you post on, the question would be....DeaconJohn. wrote:More like: posted without checking.ThomasQuinn wrote:- Fair enough. I would presume you read posts once after you type them to check for such errors though. So, with that in mind, I have to ask... ...not too good at reading?.DeaconJohn. wrote:There is a major difference between TYPO and GRAMMAR.ThomasQuinn wrote: Not to good at reading?Not too good at grammar? ...not too good at thinking before speaking? But you ARE thinking, that is the whole problem. |
| user name 11.01.2007 23:02 |
Crezchi wrote:End this discussion. Now.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:No actually, from all the threads i have seen you post on, the question would be... ...not too good at thinking before speaking? But you ARE thinking, that is the whole problem..DeaconJohn. wrote:More like: posted without checking.ThomasQuinn wrote:- Fair enough. I would presume you read posts once after you type them to check for such errors though. So, with that in mind, I have to ask... ...not too good at reading?.DeaconJohn. wrote:There is a major difference between TYPO and GRAMMAR.ThomasQuinn wrote: Not to good at reading?Not too good at grammar? |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.01.2007 11:05 |
There is no sense in responding to such a post. In fact, I'm not going to respond to any other posts in this thread. Senseless nitpicking has made it stray from its original point: namely that the US leadership is a criminal bunch. Not to mention one with a daft leader, seeing how he is ignoring the recommendations a sensible study made, in sending 20 000 additional people to place themselves in harm's way just so he can pressure senate and house a bit more. For fuck's sake, even the Republicans are straying from his side! link Fucking autocracy in the making! |
| Crezchi 12.01.2007 14:53 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: There is no sense in responding to such a post. In fact, I'm not going to respond to any other posts in this thread. Senseless nitpicking has made it stray from its original point: namely that the US leadership is a criminal bunch. Not to mention one with a daft leader, seeing how he is ignoring the recommendations a sensible study made, in sending 20 000 additional people to place themselves in harm's way just so he can pressure senate and house a bit more. For fuck's sake, even the Republicans are straying from his side! link Fucking autocracy in the making!Bravo TQ! lol. Now if you would have started the thread in this manner, then there would have been alot less fighting and confusion. I totally agree with what you just said. I hate Bush, as i have always stated, but my problem was when you personally attacked the American people, we have no choice who our leader is. You are probably thinking 'yes you do, that is why you vote', ok, but it seems like there are always fraudulent voting and screw up to make the Republican's the winner. But anyways, i am not posting here anymore either. Good day |
| user name 12.01.2007 17:56 |
Crezchi wrote: You are probably thinking 'yes you do, that is why you vote', ok, but it seems like there are always fraudulent voting and screw up to make the Republican's the winner.You mean...more people vote Republican, right? Aside from that one hassle in 2000, what could you mean? |
| Crezchi 12.01.2007 21:02 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:No i meant, even though we vote, we never get the person with the most popularity, the final decision is up to the Elect. College. so we it doesn't matter how many people did NOT vote for Bush, i am one of those, we still get stuck with whoever those elect. college assholes pick. Yeah the hassle you brought up, the hassle was in the state from where Bush's Brother was Governor, hmmm, maybe that was set up? lol.Crezchi wrote: You are probably thinking 'yes you do, that is why you vote', ok, but it seems like there are always fraudulent voting and screw up to make the Republican's the winner.You mean...more people vote Republican, right? Aside from that one hassle in 2000, what could you mean? |
| user name 12.01.2007 23:07 |
Crezchi wrote: No i meant, even though we vote, we never get the person with the most popularity, the final decision is up to the Elect. College. so we it doesn't matter how many people did NOT vote for Bush, i am one of those, we still get stuck with whoever those elect. college assholes pick. Yeah the hassle you brought up, the hassle was in the state from where Bush's Brother was Governor, hmmm, maybe that was set up? lol.I am thinking that you do not understand how elections work in the United States of America... Edit: I was going to leave it at that, but I'd be cruel not to educate you. link Do you know what grave effects faithless electors have had on the course of our elections' history? None. At all. The only thing that is close to an argument that you could possibly make (even though you didn't) is that it is possible for the electoral vote to belie the popular vote, if the vote is close enough. That has happened only three times in American history, so I dare say it's nothing to worry about. Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence. I don't know, Crezchi, I don't know...I don't know what your education is...but you might want to look some of this stuff up...ESPECIALLY before you formulate opinions on them. Please. |
| Crezchi 13.01.2007 01:50 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Who the fuck are you to question my education? lol. Honestly, i do very well. And i have a Masters, so fuck off. I don't really care about the fucked up Bush shit, the sooner he is gone, the sooner the whole world will rejuvenate.Crezchi wrote: No i meant, even though we vote, we never get the person with the most popularity, the final decision is up to the Elect. College. so we it doesn't matter how many people did NOT vote for Bush, i am one of those, we still get stuck with whoever those elect. college assholes pick. Yeah the hassle you brought up, the hassle was in the state from where Bush's Brother was Governor, hmmm, maybe that was set up? lol.I am thinking that you do not understand how elections work in the United States of America... Edit: I was going to leave it at that, but I'd be cruel not to educate you. link Do you know what grave effects faithless electors have had on the course of our elections' history? None. At all. The only thing that is close to an argument that you could possibly make (even though you didn't) is that it is possible for the electoral vote to belie the popular vote, if the vote is close enough. That has happened only three times in American history, so I dare say it's nothing to worry about. Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence. I don't know, Crezchi, I don't know...I don't know what your education is...but you might want to look some of this stuff up...ESPECIALLY before you formulate opinions on them. Please. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.01.2007 07:55 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Crezchi wrote: Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway. |
| Sir Archie Leach 13.01.2007 09:29 |
Ironic that a Netherlander should call someone else a Nazi sympathiser, mind you better than a collaborator eh TQ. |
| user name 13.01.2007 11:23 |
Crezchi wrote:I'm someone who read your entirely uninformed post. Isn't that enough? Not that I even questioned your education. I merely stated that I did not know what it was.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Who the fuck are you to question my education?Crezchi wrote: No i meant, even though we vote, we never get the person with the most popularity, the final decision is up to the Elect. College. so we it doesn't matter how many people did NOT vote for Bush, i am one of those, we still get stuck with whoever those elect. college assholes pick. Yeah the hassle you brought up, the hassle was in the state from where Bush's Brother was Governor, hmmm, maybe that was set up? lol.I am thinking that you do not understand how elections work in the United States of America... Edit: I was going to leave it at that, but I'd be cruel not to educate you. link Do you know what grave effects faithless electors have had on the course of our elections' history? None. At all. The only thing that is close to an argument that you could possibly make (even though you didn't) is that it is possible for the electoral vote to belie the popular vote, if the vote is close enough. That has happened only three times in American history, so I dare say it's nothing to worry about. Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence. I don't know, Crezchi, I don't know...I don't know what your education is...but you might want to look some of this stuff up...ESPECIALLY before you formulate opinions on them. Please. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.01.2007 11:32 |
Sir Archie Leach wrote: Ironic that a Netherlander should call someone else a Nazi sympathiser, mind you better than a collaborator eh TQ.Ever heard of the Underground? You know who set that up? The communists (and thus most of the working class) and some religious groups. You know who collaborated most of all? The conservative middle class. That means *your* kind. The ones who liked the status quo. The racists. The cowards. All of those categories apply to you too. |
| user name 13.01.2007 11:38 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:It's actually not a dead giveaway, as vote counts which exceed voters is not uncommon. Do you really think it's within the abilities of a state governor to manipulate votes anyway?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.01.2007 17:10 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:It's within the abilities of anyone with enough cash.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:It's actually not a dead giveaway, as vote counts which exceed voters is not uncommon. Do you really think it's within the abilities of a state governor to manipulate votes anyway?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway. |
| Crezchi 13.01.2007 22:32 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Exactly, do you relize the power and money that the Bush family have? The fact that they are Oil Tycoon's, GB Sr. was the Director of the CIA, then Pres., GWB deserted his country in war time, ect, ect, ect.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:It's within the abilities of anyone with enough cash.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:It's actually not a dead giveaway, as vote counts which exceed voters is not uncommon. Do you really think it's within the abilities of a state governor to manipulate votes anyway?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway. |
| user name 13.01.2007 23:25 |
Crezchi wrote:TQ: Perhaps it MIGHT be within the abilities (which is nothing more than pure speculation), but to say, "He might be able to do it, therefore he did," is absurd.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Exactly, do you relize the power and money that the Bush family have? The fact that they are Oil Tycoon's, GB Sr. was the Director of the CIA, then Pres., GWB deserted his country in war time, ect, ect, ect.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:It's within the abilities of anyone with enough cash.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:It's actually not a dead giveaway, as vote counts which exceed voters is not uncommon. Do you really think it's within the abilities of a state governor to manipulate votes anyway?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway. Crez: I don't understand how being a former CIA director gives you power. I don't understand what you mean by the last one. Therefore, all you're saying is that they are wealthy. Good point. |
| Crezchi 14.01.2007 00:35 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Being the former Dir of the CIA, then becoming Pres., think about that one, can you imagine the contacts and the power from influence this man has? With the people met, known, and their money, that family can do anything they want.Crezchi wrote:TQ: Perhaps it MIGHT be within the abilities (which is nothing more than pure speculation), but to say, "He might be able to do it, therefore he did," is absurd. Crez: I don't understand how being a former CIA director gives you power. I don't understand what you mean by the last one. Therefore, all you're saying is that they are wealthy. Good point.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Exactly, do you relize the power and money that the Bush family have? The fact that they are Oil Tycoon's, GB Sr. was the Director of the CIA, then Pres., GWB deserted his country in war time, ect, ect, ect.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:It's within the abilities of anyone with enough cash.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:It's actually not a dead giveaway, as vote counts which exceed voters is not uncommon. Do you really think it's within the abilities of a state governor to manipulate votes anyway?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway. |
| user name 14.01.2007 04:05 |
Crezchi wrote:Don't you think you're assuming too much? I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE, and I never have been. But you're making concrete conclusions from hunches, now.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Being the former Dir of the CIA, then becoming Pres., think about that one, can you imagine the contacts and the power from influence this man has? With the people met, known, and their money, that family can do anything they want.Crezchi wrote:TQ: Perhaps it MIGHT be within the abilities (which is nothing more than pure speculation), but to say, "He might be able to do it, therefore he did," is absurd. Crez: I don't understand how being a former CIA director gives you power. I don't understand what you mean by the last one. Therefore, all you're saying is that they are wealthy. Good point.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Exactly, do you relize the power and money that the Bush family have? The fact that they are Oil Tycoon's, GB Sr. was the Director of the CIA, then Pres., GWB deserted his country in war time, ect, ect, ect.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:It's within the abilities of anyone with enough cash.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:It's actually not a dead giveaway, as vote counts which exceed voters is not uncommon. Do you really think it's within the abilities of a state governor to manipulate votes anyway?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway. |
| Bob The Shrek 14.01.2007 04:05 |
Zeni wrote: Sorry, hit the wrong button. But I will use this opportunity to give a shout out to the Shrek. Howdy, Bob.Howdy Zeni - anymore book recommendations for me? |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.01.2007 08:25 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:A) I never went for the reasoning that his ability made it a FACT that he did it, I only stated that it made him suspect.Crezchi wrote:TQ: Perhaps it MIGHT be within the abilities (which is nothing more than pure speculation), but to say, "He might be able to do it, therefore he did," is absurd. Crez: I don't understand how being a former CIA director gives you power. I don't understand what you mean by the last one. Therefore, all you're saying is that they are wealthy. Good point.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Exactly, do you relize the power and money that the Bush family have? The fact that they are Oil Tycoon's, GB Sr. was the Director of the CIA, then Pres., GWB deserted his country in war time, ect, ect, ect.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:It's within the abilities of anyone with enough cash.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:It's actually not a dead giveaway, as vote counts which exceed voters is not uncommon. Do you really think it's within the abilities of a state governor to manipulate votes anyway?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway. B) CIA loyalty is to directors before presidents, that has been shown during the Cold War. Former directors enjoy a lot of benefits from their connections. That too, has been sufficiently obvious. Check out the carreers of a few former directors, and you will find (implicitly) a lot of help from former colleagues there. |
| john bodega 14.01.2007 09:40 |
"Who the fuck are you to question my education? lol." Hahaha; net-speak used with the confidence only a Masters can bestow... |
| Donna13 14.01.2007 12:10 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "Who the fuck are you to question my education? lol." Hahaha; net-speak used with the confidence only a Masters can bestow...Yeah! Maybe I should get my masters degree. What is the easiest one? |
| john bodega 14.01.2007 12:45 |
Donna13 wrote:Sewing, probably.Zebonka12 wrote: "Who the fuck are you to question my education? lol." Hahaha; net-speak used with the confidence only a Masters can bestow...Yeah! Maybe I should get my masters degree. What is the easiest one? |
| Donna13 14.01.2007 12:58 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Ha! I do have a sewing machine!!!Donna13 wrote:Sewing, probably.Zebonka12 wrote: "Who the fuck are you to question my education? lol." Hahaha; net-speak used with the confidence only a Masters can bestow...Yeah! Maybe I should get my masters degree. What is the easiest one? |
| Crezchi 14.01.2007 17:38 |
Donna13 wrote:Actually mine is in Computer Science, and i have 13 Microsoft Certifications if you must know, and i own/operate my own business. What do you do?Zebonka12 wrote: "Who the fuck are you to question my education? lol." Hahaha; net-speak used with the confidence only a Masters can bestow...Yeah! Maybe I should get my masters degree. What is the easiest one? |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.01.2007 17:51 |
Crezchi wrote:I'm a student of history, why'd you ask ;PDonna13 wrote:Actually mine is in Computer Science, and i have 13 Microsoft Certifications if you must know, and i own/operate my own business. What do you do?Zebonka12 wrote: "Who the fuck are you to question my education? lol." Hahaha; net-speak used with the confidence only a Masters can bestow...Yeah! Maybe I should get my masters degree. What is the easiest one? |
| Maz 14.01.2007 19:46 |
Bob The Shrek wrote:Into the American Woods by James MerrellZeni wrote: Sorry, hit the wrong button. But I will use this opportunity to give a shout out to the Shrek. Howdy, Bob.Howdy Zeni - anymore book recommendations for me? link Plenty of violence and good times in there |
| Crezchi 14.01.2007 20:51 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:lol. That was for the wise asses 'Donna' and 'Zebonka'. lolCrezchi wrote:I'm a student of history, why'd you ask ;PDonna13 wrote:Actually mine is in Computer Science, and i have 13 Microsoft Certifications if you must know, and i own/operate my own business. What do you do?Zebonka12 wrote: "Who the fuck are you to question my education? lol." Hahaha; net-speak used with the confidence only a Masters can bestow...Yeah! Maybe I should get my masters degree. What is the easiest one? |
| john bodega 15.01.2007 07:57 |
Crezchi wrote:What do I do?<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:lol. That was for the wise asses 'Donna' and 'Zebonka'. lolCrezchi wrote:I'm a student of history, why'd you ask ;PDonna13 wrote:Actually mine is in Computer Science, and i have 13 Microsoft Certifications if you must know, and i own/operate my own business. What do you do?Zebonka12 wrote: "Who the fuck are you to question my education? lol." Hahaha; net-speak used with the confidence only a Masters can bestow...Yeah! Maybe I should get my masters degree. What is the easiest one? I do what I want! :D |
| iGSM 15.01.2007 08:29 |
Catches the train. I know I did! |
| Donna13 15.01.2007 08:44 |
|
| Donna13 15.01.2007 08:47 |
|
| Sir Archie Leach 15.01.2007 12:58 |
Middle-class pah! The lot of you rolled over for Uncle Adolf and let him tickle your tummy! |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.01.2007 14:37 |
Sir Archie Leach wrote: Middle-class pah! The lot of you rolled over for Uncle Adolf and let him tickle your tummy!You ought to like that, being the authoritarian racist you have exposed yourself as (remember your racist thread a while ago?). I doubt you'd so much as lift a finger to stop the Hun. Hell, you'd sell your mother to him if he gave you a fair price! Or if he promised not to beat you up in return... |
| Crezchi 15.01.2007 16:29 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:LOLSir Archie Leach wrote: Middle-class pah! The lot of you rolled over for Uncle Adolf and let him tickle your tummy!You ought to like that, being the authoritarian racist you have exposed yourself as (remember your racist thread a while ago?). I doubt you'd so much as lift a finger to stop the Hun. Hell, you'd sell your mother to him if he gave you a fair price! Or if he promised not to beat you up in return... |
| Sir Archie Leach 16.01.2007 07:51 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:No denials eh? Thought so.Sir Archie Leach wrote: Middle-class pah! The lot of you rolled over for Uncle Adolf and let him tickle your tummy!You ought to like that, being the authoritarian racist you have exposed yourself as (remember your racist thread a while ago?). I doubt you'd so much as lift a finger to stop the Hun. Hell, you'd sell your mother to him if he gave you a fair price! Or if he promised not to beat you up in return... |
| thomasquinn 32989 17.01.2007 10:54 |
Sir Archie Leach wrote:A denial usually follows an accusation that makes sense. In the absence of the latter, the former is not in place.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:No denials eh? Thought so.Sir Archie Leach wrote: Middle-class pah! The lot of you rolled over for Uncle Adolf and let him tickle your tummy!You ought to like that, being the authoritarian racist you have exposed yourself as (remember your racist thread a while ago?). I doubt you'd so much as lift a finger to stop the Hun. Hell, you'd sell your mother to him if he gave you a fair price! Or if he promised not to beat you up in return... |
| tcc 07.01.2013 09:51 |
Is this the hidden topic ? |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.01.2013 09:56 |
Nope. I said it wasn't an old topic. |