|
Post by Hume on Dec 19, 2009 16:58:41 GMT
Why not go ahead and take Tehran while we're in the neighborhood. It would be a cakewalk for the US Marines. Just like the Iraq military, the Iranian soldiers would run and hide. Put the Mullahs out of office. Bulldoze their nuclear bomb making factories. Rid Planet Earth of one more crazy regime. What a good idea! As in Iraq , only about 200,000 people will die. But what the hell they's only wogs baint they? (Or is is Persians -difficult to tell these brown people apart). As in Iraq, we would soon be forgiven and normal life would resume!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 19, 2009 18:26:44 GMT
Why not go ahead and take Tehran while we're in the neighborhood. It would be a cakewalk for the US Marines. Just like the Iraq military, the Iranian soldiers would run and hide. Put the Mullahs out of office. Bulldoze their nuclear bomb making factories. Rid Planet Earth of one more crazy regime. What a good idea! As in Iraq , only about 200,000 people will die. But what the hell they's only wogs baint they? (Or is is Persians -difficult to tell these brown people apart). As in Iraq, we would soon be forgiven and normal life would resume! you're at least getting closer to reality. hopefully, only the garbage running the country, and those worthless enough to be supporting them, would die, and the human beings would stay alive
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 19, 2009 22:47:54 GMT
Or, if you don't want to bother the mullahs, we can just turn the problem over to the U.N. knowing full well that they will do nothing. They always do nothing. They're one hundred percent reliable and dependable (when doing nothing is the formula). Meanwhile the Mullahs are killing the opposition protesters. news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_elections
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 19, 2009 23:38:00 GMT
Or, if you don't want to bother the mullahs, we can just turn the problem over to the U.N. knowing full well that they will do nothing. They always do nothing. They're one hundred percent reliable and dependable (when doing nothing is the formula). Meanwhile the Mullahs are killing the opposition protesters. news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_electionsfor sure. the un is nothing but a bunch of imbecillic nutjobs who would rather negotiate with trash than do the right thing. there are too many ignorant idiots who are so abjectly stupid that they want to negotiate with evil
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Dec 20, 2009 9:59:24 GMT
Or, if you don't want to bother the mullahs, we can just turn the problem over to the U.N. knowing full well that they will do nothing. They always do nothing. They're one hundred percent reliable and dependable (when doing nothing is the formula). Meanwhile the Mullahs are killing the opposition protesters. news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_electionsfor sure. the un is nothing but a bunch of imbecillic nutjobs who would rather negotiate with trash than do the right thing. there are too many ignorant idiots who are so abjectly stupid that they want to negotiate with evil I never quite get why anyone would be so hostile to the idea of the UN. Flawed as it - and attempts at creating international organisations are always flawed (as someone pointed out on another message board, her Church Flower Commitee meetings ended up in huge fights, so what hope is there for nation speaking unto nation) - the idea of nations coming together to resolve their conflicts peacefully is surely, in itself, better than the alternatives. Of course the UN has not delivered world peace. That was never possible. But it is equally impossible to calculate the number of conflicts, deaths and the extent of misery that has been PREVENTED by international organisations like the UN. Jumbo, you see the world in very black and white colours and I find your emphatic posting style closes down more discussions than it generates to be honest. I envy you your great belief in moral absolutes, but I find it hard to agree with you. Politics - and life - is compromise and negotiation.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 20, 2009 12:38:07 GMT
for sure. the un is nothing but a bunch of imbecillic nutjobs who would rather negotiate with trash than do the right thing. there are too many ignorant idiots who are so abjectly stupid that they want to negotiate with evil I never quite get why anyone would be so hostile to the idea of the UN. Flawed as it - and attempts at creating international organisations are always flawed (as someone pointed out on another message board, her Church Flower Commitee meetings ended up in huge fights, so what hope is there for nation speaking unto nation) - the idea of nations coming together to resolve their conflicts peacefully is surely, in itself, better than the alternatives. Of course the UN has not delivered world peace. That was never possible. But it is equally impossible to calculate the number of conflicts, deaths and the extent of misery that has been PREVENTED by international organisations like the UN. Jumbo, you see the world in very black and white colours and I find your emphatic posting style closes down more discussions than it generates to be honest. I envy you your great belief in moral absolutes, but I find it hard to agree with you. Politics - and life - is compromise and negotiation. well hon, we'll start with: Of course the UN has not delivered world peace. That was never possible. that is TOTALLY true. you just left out the FACT that it is not even desirable, for rational people. as patrick henry said, "is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased by the chains of slavery". the obvious answer of intelligent people is a resounding NO. only fools negotiate with evil. i doubt that you could find many poles who think that negotiating with hitler was such a grand idea. there is absolutely NO difference between that and negotiating with the evil of today. the result is ALWAYS the same. i see everything in black and white simply because that's the reality. you want things to be grey, and it is impossible. grey, regardless of what shade it is, is a mixture of black and white. there is NOTHING in the world that can be good if there is ANY evil in it. you cannot have something partially right and partially wrong. it simply doesn't exist
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Dec 20, 2009 15:49:08 GMT
There is, of course, a flaw in your reasoning! One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who gets to decide? You, I guess?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 20, 2009 16:25:05 GMT
There is, of course, a flaw in your reasoning! One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who gets to decide? You, I guess? Ben that line is typical liberal nonsense. A freedom fighter is someone who is attempting to free people from an oppressive dictatorial regime. A terrorist is someone who is trying to intimidate the opposition into submission through outrageous acts that invoke fear. The Jihadists who commandeered commercial airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were not freedom fighters. They were hoping to intimidate the US Government to leave Islamic lands so that their extremist brand of Islam could be forced down the throats of the populace Taliban style. They were quite the opposite of freedom fighters.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 20, 2009 16:30:27 GMT
Do you remember those leftist anti-war protesters who liked to walk around with T-Shirts that proclaimed, "No War for Oil?" I knew they were completely off base at the time. Now we can see just how ridiculous that slogan really was. Here is the real deal on Iraq's oil. news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091219/wl_time/08599194878700Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion - Russia and China - while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction.
|
|
|
Post by Hume on Dec 20, 2009 16:54:03 GMT
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who gets to decide? You, I guess?Ben that line is typical liberal nonsense. A freedom fighter is someone who is attempting to free people from an oppressive dictatorial regime. A terrorist is someone who is trying to intimidate the opposition into submission through outrageous acts that invoke fear. I agree entirely with your definition and welcome the fact that you regard the Palestinian struggle as a fight for freedom.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Dec 20, 2009 18:16:41 GMT
The Jihadists who commandeered commercial airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were not freedom fighters. They were hoping to intimidate the US Government to leave Islamic lands so that their extremist brand of Islam could be forced down the throats of the populace Taliban style. They were quite the opposite of freedom fighters. In 2001, just which 'Islamic' lands was the USA in? As I remember, that incident was the justification for going into secularised Iraq - a very odd backer for the Jihadists who hated Saddam as much as they did the West.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 20, 2009 19:45:16 GMT
There is, of course, a flaw in your reasoning! One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who gets to decide? You, I guess? FACT laddie. there is no such thing as an islamic freedom fighter. EVERY intelligent, rational person knows that. others would be taken on a case by case basis
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 20, 2009 19:48:28 GMT
There is, of course, a flaw in your reasoning! One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who gets to decide? You, I guess? Ben that line is typical liberal nonsense. A freedom fighter is someone who is attempting to free people from an oppressive dictatorial regime. A terrorist is someone who is trying to intimidate the opposition into submission through outrageous acts that invoke fear. The Jihadists who commandeered commercial airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were not freedom fighters. They were hoping to intimidate the US Government to leave Islamic lands so that their extremist brand of Islam could be forced down the throats of the populace Taliban style. They were quite the opposite of freedom fighters. for sure it is a totally ignorant comment. freedom fighters do not wantonly murder women and children, unlike terrorists who are nothing but cowards
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 20, 2009 19:52:12 GMT
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who gets to decide? You, I guess?Ben that line is typical liberal nonsense. A freedom fighter is someone who is attempting to free people from an oppressive dictatorial regime. A terrorist is someone who is trying to intimidate the opposition into submission through outrageous acts that invoke fear. I agree entirely with your definition and welcome the fact that you regard the Palestinian struggle as a fight for freedom. of course, of all the ignorant comments that you have made, that one is the most abjectly stupid. the palestinians have NO right to be anywhere other than jordan. get a grip
|
|
|
Post by Hume on Dec 20, 2009 19:53:15 GMT
Ben that line is typical liberal nonsense. A freedom fighter is someone who is attempting to free people from an oppressive dictatorial regime. A terrorist is someone who is trying to intimidate the opposition into submission through outrageous acts that invoke fear. The Jihadists who commandeered commercial airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were not freedom fighters. They were hoping to intimidate the US Government to leave Islamic lands so that their extremist brand of Islam could be forced down the throats of the populace Taliban style. They were quite the opposite of freedom fighters. for sure it is a totally ignorant comment. freedom fighters do not wantonly murder women and children, unlike terrorists who are nothing but cowards Why I just lurve you Yankee rednecks! I never thought for one moment that I would find support for the Palestinian cause from such an oddly unexpected quarter! Up the Confederacy! Freedom for Palestine!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 20, 2009 19:53:45 GMT
The Jihadists who commandeered commercial airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were not freedom fighters. They were hoping to intimidate the US Government to leave Islamic lands so that their extremist brand of Islam could be forced down the throats of the populace Taliban style. They were quite the opposite of freedom fighters. In 2001, just which 'Islamic' lands was the USA in? As I remember, that incident was the justification for going into secularised Iraq - a very odd backer for the Jihadists who hated Saddam as much as they did the West. for starters, we have had bases in saudi arabia for years
|
|
|
Post by Hume on Dec 20, 2009 19:58:31 GMT
I agree entirely with your definition and welcome the fact that you regard the Palestinian struggle as a fight for freedom. of course, of all the ignorant comments that you have made, that one is the most abjectly stupid. the palestinians have NO right to be anywhere other than jordan. get a grip Oh dear, I appear to have made an error of judgement! But how come a redneck from an Arizonan trailer park knows where the Palestinians belong? Could it be that they actually read Supermarket free magazines given away with six-packs?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Dec 20, 2009 20:59:46 GMT
of course, of all the ignorant comments that you have made, that one is the most abjectly stupid. the palestinians have NO right to be anywhere other than jordan. get a grip Where do you get that idea from? You are aware that the Palestinians had lived in peace for thousands of years until the UN flattened their Country and founded Israel on it?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Dec 20, 2009 21:03:14 GMT
for sure it is a totally ignorant comment. freedom fighters do not wantonly murder women and children, unlike terrorists who are nothing but cowards That is self serving BS and you know it! Americans have wantonly killed women and children in every conflict they are invovled in. They have sponsored terrorism on one side or the other of every terrorist caimpagn ever undertaken.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 20, 2009 23:03:29 GMT
Surely you're not referring to the Palestinians who voted for the terrorist organization Hamas are you. Not those Palestinians. If you lay down with dogs you should expect to get up with fleas. Freedom fighters don't lob rockets into civilian communities out of hatred. Freedom fighters don't send their children into coffee shops and school buses to become, ahem, martyrs or suicide bombers. I'm sure some of the Palestinians are indeed freedom seekers. Those are the ones seeking to establish a dialog with Israel and not the ones supporting Hamas.
|
|