Bigmouth

[Ogryn1313]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Faulty intelligence? You still believe that? Let's see, there's hte lie about the uranium, the dosier that turned out to be a plagiarised thesis from after the first war, the whole David Kelly thing, the 45 minuite lie, that's just off the top of my head. I knew there were no WMD in iraq, we all knew it. Everything we (the Anti war proesters) said turned out to be true, everything they said turned out to be a lie. All the 'intelligence' they released were revealed as lies by the press.

Facts: Al Samoud missiles were found and destroyed by who? Oh the UN

What middle eastern country in in breach of hte most UN resolutions, over 100 of them? Oh look it's Israel.

What middle eastern country was caught secretly developing nuclear weapons? Oh it's Israel again.

What middle eastern country has never started a war or invaded any of it's neighbours? Oh it's that super dangerous country Iran.

"I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him" - Ariel Sharon. There's a nice popular quote from Sharon, I've never seen evidence he said it, just like I've never seen any evidence that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map.

If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the holocaust make him evil, does Japan's denial of thier WW2 atrocities make them evil? Does Turkey's denial of the Armenian Genocide make them evil? Iran is threatened with war, and Turkey is given weapons and offered nuclear secrets.

If you want to look at those who fund terrorists, who funded the IRA for years? Who funded Al Quieda when thier terrorism was directed against the soviets? Who supported Saddam and gave him chemical weapons? Who was his ally when he commited his biggest atrocities?

Continued oppression and human rights violations? What country are we talking about here? That could apply to any number of US allies, including all those countries that the US sends prisoners to. Lets see, what human rights violations have occured since sadam is gone, and who is perpetrating them?

Oh Iraq tried to shoot down planes violating it's airspace? Planes that were bombing it constantly? Blowing up stuff like penicillin factories.

The US doesn't care about democracy, all it cares about is whether natins are pro or anti US. It props up dictatorships all over the world so long as they are pro US. In 1953, the US and Britain deposed the democraticly elected Prime minister of Iran because he was too socialist for their liking. The US had no objection to rule by a brutal dictator, so long as he was a US friendly brutal dictator.

US double standards are unending.

The US objective is, and always had been, power and control.

Much of the things you trot out, whether true or not are things open to interpretation and ideological bias. Thus you can deny a thing I would support and vice versa. Neither of which really matters.

You drag Israel into this for some reasons. I'm a person who believes Israel must do whatever it requires to defend itself as it is surrounded by enemies. And historically, Israel has cooperated more with America and the UN than it's enemies. So if they have some resolutions they've violated so be it.

I'm sorry to say you strike me as one of those far left intellectual elitist types. The kind with a clear and obvious anti-American stance. The kind of person who will tenaciously cling to their argument and evidence (even in occasions when their evidence is thin) to support their argument. Thus, I feel anything you say isn't necessarily being said out of the truth of the issue but rather your hatred of a particular nation.

Now I could be wrong. It's been known to happen from time to time. And I would hope I'm wrong in this instance. But all I see is argumentative hate speech directed at the United States. The same kind of stuff I see in the far left newspapers, blogs, and from people like Michael Moore, Code Pink, and Rosie O'Donnel. I am beginning to think you have swallowed a specific ideology hook line and sinker and let this ideology think for you.

Now, you could..just as easily accuse me of the same thing and chalk me up to being some kind of unintelligent and blindly patriotic American because I choose to defend my nation and will not overlook it's good points. But the difference, thus far, between you and I is that I don't solely focus on the negative. I see the flaws and the good in all things. If you are just another ideologue you probably only see the flaws. It is made evident in your hateful tone and use of moral equivalency. The latter is often a tool of the ideologues to mitigate the failings of their hateful views. Moral equivalency is never a good thing to embrace and use to back up arguments. The issue at hand is the United States. And to make comparisons with other things is moral equivalency. Such as your comparing Israel to the Hussein Iraq. You do it to mitigate the issue and spin it in your favor.

Moral equivalency is dangerous. The state of Vermont's legislature primarily is made up of secular progressives, who are a component of the far-left ideology. And they embrace moral equivalency. Such to the extent it has affected their law making. This is why child molester's in Vermont can get excessively light sentences. Now, this is just an example. But I hope you see my point that when trying to compare things on a morally equivalent basis, to back up an ideology, is illogical and doesn't produce good results in debate. It's a means to deflect from the core issue.

Also, we didn't fund Al Qaeda during the Afghan Soviet War. They didn't exist. Bin Laden wasn't on our payroll and didn't any form of training by American representatives. See, this is the myth. Here is the truth: Bin Laden did fight the Soviets. And he may well have had access to American weapons. We did indeed fund the Afghans to fight the Soviets.

What people who cling to this myth don't understand is why Bin Laden went to fight. We all know he is an Arab. Not an Afghan. So why should he bother? He bothered because he answered an Islamic call to arms along with 1000's of others from around the Islamic world. They poured in to help their Islamic Afghan brothers fight the infidels. So his connection, as people like you imply, to America is a myth. Funny how people can easily manipulate facts for ideological purposes. Bin Laden came into Afghanistan on his own. I'm sure some in the far left will produce documentation or second hand information to suggest we specifically sought him out, offered him training and weapons. And there are fools who believe this kind of shit. Don't be one.

I'll use a simple analogy to describe the US and Bin Laden link: it'd be like me throwing a big party and I invited you to come Anna. But then you brought some friends with you I didn't invite. That's the connection. That's all it is. Al Qaeda didn't even exist then. The organization came after that war.

So, as you see, I didn't deny our involvement in Afghanistan. And I didn't deny Bin Laden was there. It's all about how one interprets the facts and evidence without letting their political ideology bias their interpretations. Thus far, you show me you are purely biased. You embrace evidence presented that backs you up completely and unquestioningly while dismissing the possibility counter-evidence could be right, and mitigate and twist things using moral equivalency.

You're proving to be frustrating and yet interesting. I do enjoy our back and forth. And, at least you're sticking to your guns Anna.

[sesame]

Today I saw the Demonstration of Abrams Tank capabilities in NatGeo channel. The RPG (rocket propelled grenades) were deflected right back from the heavily armoured wall of the tank. That was impressive.

I also saw US marines field documentary of how they captured the city of Karabilah in Syria-Iraq border. It was not impressive at all. The soldiers seriously lacked tactics, they were frequently walking into the open. The whole weapons co. freaked out when one of their men got hit on the thigh. If you are in a war zone, what do you expect? They captured the first house and found women and unarmed men inside. But as soon as one soldier recieved that thigh injury, they didnt bother to check any more. They Just tossed some c4 explosives inside the next houses and blasted whoever were inside. Snipers were hitting near the soldiers heads. So they first tried to shoot down the sniper (surely the sniper's gun was not a long range one) with a machine gun. When they couldnt, they called in an airstrike from choppers on that particular building. The airstrike completely destroyed the building. The US soldiers believe in explosive firepower. Their favs are RPG and C4. When they got nervous, they deployed a weapon that threw about 50 packets of C4 roped togather like sausages!! When it exploded, it tore off 1/3 of the city! I think that without that devastating fire-power and frequent cry-outs for air-strike, the US marines are not that skilled or fearless after all. Their fame is a myth, just propaganda.

[sesame]

Originally Posted by SSAnna

If you want to look at those who fund terrorists, who funded the IRA for years? Who funded Al Quieda when thier terrorism was directed against the soviets? Who supported Saddam and gave him chemical weapons? Who was his ally when he commited his biggest atrocities?

Who profits from the arms race? Who ultimately profits from Warfare? Who can be called modern warlords?

[sesame]

Obama - and McCain - offended by New Yorker cover.
This is over the limit of pun, its disgusting. I considered this cartoon most offensive and racist. So, I didnt post it in the Forum. But you can see it here.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4619003a6433.html

Obama is shown here as an enemy of US, and friend of the militant Islamic groups.

[TheSkronkDonkey]

Originally Posted by sesame

Obama - and McCain - offended by New Yorker cover.
This is over the limit of pun, its disgusting.

Says you.

I think it's a brilliant mockery of rabid right-wing whackos who'll say anything to bring down Barack Obama and his clearly superior candidacy.

Its grotesque hyperbole is meant to be commensurate with the magnitude of the idiocy of making Obama out to be "Osama", the deal over his middle name (Hussein), his skin colour, Islamophobia and skewing in general.

It's a shame that either side had to poo-poo this magazine cover, let alone both of them. But politics is a shrewd business (pun intended). The Overton Window is only so wide at any given time. The creation of this image, and the ensuing condemnation, is a powerful statement about where we stand, socially and politically, at this very moment in time.

[Ogryn1313]

Clearly superior candidacy?

How about some reality now please?

He's not been a senator all that long.
He's not really accomplished any serious achievements or legislature for the nation.
He has minimal leadership experience.
He didn't serve in the military. While not required it does help. Consider this a bonus which imparts some experience to the candidate.
Instead of visiting and meeting foreign diplomats and leaders like McCain did, he chose to stay home and bitch and moan and fight with Clinton.
He tells us we ought to inflate our tires to solve the fuel problem.
He thinks we can sit down and chat with the likes of the Iranian president and Bin Laden.
He's as far left as it gets.

Not that McCain is a godly being but lets see....

More experience in politics than Clinton and Obama combined.
Served his nature in military and then in Washington...a far more bloody battleground than Viet Nam.
Actually bothers to accomplish things as a senator instead of being a political rockstar.

I don't know...if rosy words and promises of change and hope (while denigrating a certain group Americans) makes him superior then I guess so. That's why elitists love him. Elitists, the far left, all talk and little substance. Just like Obama.

Now this isn't any Republican bias. This is just looking at the reality. The guy is nothing. An empty suit. A political rockstar with a silver tongue and the backing of the far left and it's media machine. Anyone who votes for him clearly isn't much of an independent thinker.

[TracyCoxx]

Ann Coulter is yet another example of how the Republican party has been hijacked by the religious right. I hate that they have so much control over the party, but it seems to be the main reason in this country of many fundamentalist christians that the republicans get elected. I do agree with republicans on capitalism and economic conservatism though, and a strong national defense. Lower taxes? Come on. That's obvious.

But it's the fundamentalist christian crap that's lobotomizing our education system.

BTW, sesame, the quote you attributed to Ann Coulter:
"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

If she said that, she was actually quoting a muslim cleric who was tired of seeing muslim extremists resorting to terrorism.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Ogryn, what a post, basicly you spend half your post constructing arguements that simply damn you more than they do me. All of what you say applies to yourself 50x more than me.

I brought up no moral equivalence, you fail to track even your own arguements, let alone mine, your use of the phrase doesn't even make sense anyway. Lets see, you accuse me of bringing Israel into it, but you did, you justify the attack on Iran as protecting Israel, and the comparison of the Sharon quote to the Ahmadinejad quote was not moral equivalence. I was taking the piss out of you. The fact is neither quote is real, they are both lies, just both popular and well repeated lies. Sharon never said he would burn a Palestinian, and Ahmadinejad never said he wanted Israel wiped off the map. I could just as easily repeat the Sharon quote like you did with the lies about Ahmadinejad, but I choose not to.

Look at the post before yours. GRH is talking the truth, the USA is just the latest line of a long string of colonial powers. They take that they can, and obfuscate their motives with lies. It's not like they are the first, democracy, freedom, human rights, the British empire used to call it the white man's burden.