• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"Fascist Bush! You are the terrorist!"

Billo_Really said:
You don't export democracy at the end of a gun on a nation that has no clue what being democratic is. Nor do they have any experience living as a republic.

Oh, and interesting side note, I wonder what life would be like today if everyone had told George Washington the same thing...
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Well I've got to go with Billo here Germany declared war on us when we declared war on Japan but the fact remains that we were still in a state of war with Iraq and due to Saddams failure to abide by the terms of the cease fire we had every right nay the obligation to take action.

That's my point. Germany's only offense towards us was attacking one of our allies, just as Iraq's was.
 
Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
Billo, you're the master of taking a completely unidentifiable, individual instance and proclaiming it to be the status quo.

First off, where is that picture from?
Secondly, what is the damage done from?
Thirdly, what did it look like BEFORE?
And fourth, does it matter?
No, I think I'm a master at having other people do everything they can think of not understand the point I'm making. I never said it was the "status quo". So why introduce this as an issue? The damage was our military rolling through trying to find the so-called insurgents. I assume it looked a lot better before we showed up. I'm sure it matters to the people that live there.
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess ARCHON figured out that I really did say more than "libya" in my opening post

apology accepted:mrgreen:
later and Billy-you changed the subject by trying to claim Japan was different. that wasn't the point-it was to demonstrate that posting a picture means nothing, especially when the job isn't over yet-and you know its not over yet

Actually I just got tired of responding to such a degenerative and unintellectual nincompoop as yourself. You bring nothing to the table and it's more than clear that you never will. If you had anything compelling to say rest assured I would be interested. Sadly, that is simply not the case. You just go on and on and on... about nothing... refusing to acknowledge any fact or hold any accountability for your comments. You're merely an apologist, a toad, and you can't substantiate your claims because, if you read throught this post, it is clear that you are only trying to minimize damage, proclaim victory upon idiocy, and preserve what you believe to for some ridiculous reason to be esteemed.
 
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
Uh, it's pretty self explanatory, but since you can't comprehend let me spell it out for you: The true fascist were in power in Argentina before the IMF and W.B. backed by the U.S. gave them huge loans that they still havn't payed back which allowed them to modernize and to have a free market which led to democracy following the end of the cold war.

Now due to Argentina's as well as most other S. American countries inabilitys to pay back these loans the U.S. has led a movement for debt restructuring, bail ins as opposed to bail outs, and most important of all; debt forgiveness. That's why Bush went there to discuss debt forgiveness and these idiots are protesting him for it they're a bunch of freaking self defeating idiots.
Is that the only reason they could be protesting? Were not getting ready to attack Argentina?
 
Archon said:
Actually I just got tired of responding to such a degenerative and unintellectual nincompoop as yourself. You bring nothing to the table and it's more than clear that you never will. If you had anything compelling to say rest assured I would be interested. Sadly, that is simply not the case. You just go on and on and on... about nothing... refusing to acknowledge any fact or hold any accountability for your comments. You're merely an apologist, a toad, and you can't substantiate your claims because, if you read throught this post, it is clear that you are only trying to minimize damage, proclaim victory upon idiocy, and preserve what you believe to for some ridiculous reason to be esteemed.

Despite the fact that you've proven yourself to be quite reluctant to open your mind to any possibilities other than those which you've decided on, I'm curious as to why you hate neo-cons. Do you know what a neocon is? Do you understand their policies? Or did someone smarter(?) than you tell you that they were bad, and you just followed along?
 
Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
Huh?

Germany never directly attacked us, just like Iraq never attacked us.

However, Germany and Japan did attack our allies, just like Iraq did.

How you purport that there is no basic comparison is beyond me.
Not that far beyond you. Just reach a little farther, you can grab it. Who did Iraq attack that was our ally? Kuwait? You know, in this country, you can't be found guilty of the same crime twice. Too bad we don't treat others that way.
 
Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
Oh, and interesting side note, I wonder what life would be like today if everyone had told George Washington the same thing...
The mechanics of our democracy didn't start until they stopped shooting at each other.
 
Billo_Really said:
No, I think I'm a master at having other people do everything they can think of not understand the point I'm making. I never said it was the "status quo". So why introduce this as an issue? The damage was our military rolling through trying to find the so-called insurgents. I assume it looked a lot better before we showed up. I'm sure it matters to the people that live there.

I'll ask again...

Where is that picture from?
What is the damage done from?
What did it look like before?
Does it matter?

If you can verify an answer to any of these, I'll be surprised...

Moreover, is it a surprise to you that in the mass invasion of another nation, there might be a few places that would get beat up?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the thousands of schools that we've built have made up for it. (Not to mention the infrastructure, improvement in quality of life, oh, and the whole freedom from dictator, free elections thing)
 
Billo_Really said:
The mechanics of our democracy didn't start until they stopped shooting at each other.

And they NEVER would have started if we HADN'T started shooting at each other.

Come on billo, even you can't honestly be arguing this point. Cut your losses. Don't argue AGAINST the actions taken to found our nation.
 
Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
Despite the fact that you've proven yourself to be quite reluctant to open your mind to any possibilities other than those which you've decided on, I'm curious as to why you hate neo-cons. Do you know what a neocon is? Do you understand their policies? Or did someone smarter(?) than you tell you that they were bad, and you just followed along?
Neo-cons are the worst, most destructive Americans this country has ever had.
 
Billo_Really said:
Not that far beyond you. Just reach a little farther, you can grab it. Who did Iraq attack that was our ally? Kuwait? You know, in this country, you can't be found guilty of the same crime twice. Too bad we don't treat others that way.

Uh, what?

I'm referring to the reasons for the first Gulf War, chief. The reasons for the second gulf war are completely different, though no less numerous or pressing.

Continued violation of UN resolutions demanding action, financial and material support to terrorists, refusal to fully comply with inspections, etc.
 
Billo_Really said:
Not that far beyond you. Just reach a little farther, you can grab it. Who did Iraq attack that was our ally? Kuwait? You know, in this country, you can't be found guilty of the same crime twice. Too bad we don't treat others that way.

Yes but we were still in a state of war with Iraq from the years 91-2003 our agreement of not to invade in 91 was contingent on the condition that Saddam would abide by the cease fire agreement which he signed and to abide by the U.N. resolutions placed against Iraq, by all rights we could have invaded after he violated the first of the resolutions.
 
Billo_Really said:
Neo-cons are the worst, most destructive Americans this country has ever had.

Forgive me if you haven't quite built up the credibility for me to take your statement at face value, but you want to qualify that for me? Perhaps explain yourself?

Here's a taste of some solid neocon philosophy, I'd love to hear your comments.

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has lacked an operating theory of the world. But our post-Cold War entanglements have taught us all we need to know: disconnectedness defines danger. Countries that are thick with network connectivity (i.e. integrated into globalization) do not produce threats. Countries that are not so integrated, typically repressive regimes or failed states, do produce threats (e.g. terrorism, regional aggression, drug trafficking, etc.).

The world can thus be divided in two: The Functioning Core and the Non-Integrating Gap. Our national security imperative should be to Shrink the Gap.

The Core contains North America, most of South America, the EU, Russia, Israel, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan and Asia’s emerging economies. The Gap encompasses most everyone else, but most pressingly the Middle East and North Korea.

What does it mean to “shrink the Gap?” We want to Make Globalization Truly Global. How? Kiss those dictators goodbye! Through overwhelming international pressure or, if we must, through invasion, we will oust troublesome Gap regimes.

We must never again win the war and lose the peace. Iraq has demonstrated that we need a massive reorganization of our armed forces.

Our war machine should be composed of two parts: The Leviathan and The System Administrators (or SysAdmin). The Leviathan (planes and smart bombs) will shock and awe, just as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq; the SysAdmin force (military police, humanitarian aid, etc.) will follow, doing what we failed to do in Iraq. We need to build up our SysAdmin capabilities.

http://www.thelmagazine.com/3/19/critique/critique.cfm
 
RightatNYU said:
Forgive me if you haven't quite built up the credibility for me to take your statement at face value, but you want to qualify that for me? Perhaps explain yourself?

Here's a taste of some solid neocon philosophy, I'd love to hear your comments.



http://www.thelmagazine.com/3/19/critique/critique.cfm

Damn right give them the free market and Democracy will be the natural progression and this is the essence of the Democracy theory: Democracies do not wage war upon one another.
 
Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
I'll ask again...

Where is that picture from?
What is the damage done from?
What did it look like before?
Does it matter?

If you can verify an answer to any of these, I'll be surprised...
Here's the link:http://images.google.com/imgres?img...jah&start=40&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N

Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
Moreover, is it a surprise to you that in the mass invasion of another nation, there might be a few places that would get beat up?
Only if it is a mass "illegal" invasion.

Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the thousands of schools that we've built have made up for it. (Not to mention the infrastructure, improvement in quality of life, oh, and the whole freedom from dictator, free elections thing)
You think that makes up for destroying 75% of a city with 300,000 residence. Many of whom were forced to live in tents afterwards.

Here's someone who actually lives there [in Iraq]. Or don't they matter too.

Our situation is no different from the dark days of Saddam Hussein
By Samak Burhanuddin Azzaman, October 12, 2005


The former regime of Saddam Hussein suppressed all forms of freedom, did not tolerate the slightest dissent and buried any voice he did not like.

As a result of his rash, brutal and despotic polices we ended up in the kind of the brutal foreign occupation we have now.

Iraqis’ pleasure over the collapse of the regime was short-lived. It did not take us long to discover that there has been little or no difference in conditions before and after the so-called “liberation of Iraq.”

But the tragedy is that those ruling us still persist that their days are better than those of Saddam Hussein’s.

Two and a half years after the “liberation” we need to examine our conditions to see whether they are better or worse than those before the “liberation.”

Today our country is plagued with crises which have been accumulating and aggravating with each passing day without anyone of them addressed or even alleviated.

The fuel crisis is a product of the new era of “liberation” and there is nothing in the horizon that it is going to be solved in the near future.

Then we have acute shortages of most amenities, including basic services like power, clean water, garbage collection and sewage disposal.

We need not mention the security situation and the daily car and suicide bombs as well as rampant corruption, assassinations and kidnappings.

In reality we are in the midst of mounting chaos, and dangerous descent into lawlessness and disorder.

All our hopes for a better future are gone and our dreams broken.

The reign of Saddam Hussein was the worst of times. And now we are also passing through the worst of times.


http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=opinion\2005-10-12\10549.htm
 
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
Yes but we were still in a state of war with Iraq from the years 91-2003 our agreement of not to invade in 91 was contingent on the condition that Saddam would abide by the cease fire agreement which he signed and to abide by the U.N. resolutions placed against Iraq, by all rights we could have invaded after he violated the first of the resolutions.
How did he violate the cease-fire?
 
Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
Here's a taste of some solid neocon philosophy, I'd love to hear your comments.
Is this a joke? Do you really want me to comment on that bullshit?
 
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
Damn right give them the free market and Democracy will be the natural progression and this is the essence of the Democracy theory: Democracies do not wage war upon one another.
I don't let anyone tell me how to live. I'm sure other countries might feel the same way.
 
Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
And they NEVER would have started if we HADN'T started shooting at each other.

Come on billo, even you can't honestly be arguing this point. Cut your losses. Don't argue AGAINST the actions taken to found our nation.
Are we having a conversation? Because, you keep responding to things I'm not saying.
 
Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
Uh, what?
You heard me. I didn't stutter.

Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
I'm referring to the reasons for the first Gulf War, chief.
Howwww.........ya doin'! Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we originally talking about the SECOND war, not the first!

Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
The reasons for the second gulf war are completely different, though no less numerous or pressing.
After DSM, they weren't that much of a surprise, either.

Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
Continued violation of UN resolutions demanding action, financial and material support to terrorists, refusal to fully comply with inspections, etc.
That was the UN's call to make. Not us acting unilaterally. I don't consider sending a check to the family of a suicide bomber supporting terrorism. If you can prove one leads directly to another, I'll admit I was wrong. Until then, my next point. They were complying with the inspectors. But the inspectors took off when Bush said he couldn't guarantee their safety because he just had to attack somebody.
 
Billo_Really said:
How did he violate the cease-fire?

He violated the cease fire when he shot at our planes in the no fly zone he violated the resolutions by kicking out the weapons inspectors and those are just two out of a list of about a dozen of the resolutions which he violated if you want me to find exactly which violations were violated and how they were violated I'll find them but is it even worth arguing even the U.N. admits that he violated several of the resolutions.
 
What happened to Turtledude? I guess the hair won this race.
 
Back
Top Bottom