[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But what I was refering to was your "You anti-Bush and anti-US people"...in a very accusatory tone on your part. And since when did Kerry have anything to do with this conversation? Sounds a bit knee jerky and ranting to me. [/QUOTE]
1. I wasn't including you in that, but it's always the same few... whenever something goes awry, it's George Bush's or The U.S.' fault.
2. Kerry was simply brought up to show that the Democrats are doing nothing to put a legitimate candidate up. Kerry's an idiot. We will probably never see him again. Of all the times to make a blunder...
3. I was ranting. I could probably use a hamburger or two.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]¼Microwave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
If Clinton would've been able to run again and win, he would have had to do something about Saddam as well. [/QUOTE]
Why is that? Nothing needed to be done about Saddam in March of '03 that didn't need to be done during the past 30-odd years. The urgency behind the move to oust him was imagined at best, falsified at worst.
If Clinton would've been able to run again and win, he would have had to do something about Saddam as well. [/QUOTE]
Why is that? Nothing needed to be done about Saddam in March of '03 that didn't need to be done during the past 30-odd years. The urgency behind the move to oust him was imagined at best, falsified at worst.
Yeah, what was his name? Nyguyen? Something like that. Funny how the name goes outter yer head after it happens.
Oooh, the Bali Nine are done for too.
Oooh, the Bali Nine are done for too.
"and he's allowed a fair trial because why?
Did he give out fair trials to the people he butchered?"
Giving out fair trials *separates* us from assholes like Hussein. Besides - it might've taken longer, but he'd still be guilty. He'd still be hanged. If it had been done tastefully, the sensationalist coverage would've been lessened and his crazy assed antics wouldn't have gotten the airplay they got from this very public show trial.
Personally? I reckon a lot of fuss would've been avoided if they'd just filled in his hidey-hole with sand. But... its like this. What do we become, as 'civilised humans' when we say 'Everyone deserves a fair trial... except that guy. Oh, and him. And maybe him too'.
A line must be drawn somewhere - nothing would've been lost by organising a trial with a bit more dignity and legal credibility. He'd still be dancing at the end of a rope in the end.
"Yeah, what was his name? Nyguyen? Something like that. Funny how the name goes outter yer head after it happens."
I remember his face well enough, and I remember the way they carted him out afterwards. It's bad enough they hanged the poor sod, but to drag him out of the prison in a flimsy white sheet... no dignity, and no respect for a human life. I don't really care how eager Singapore were to prove their hardline stance on drug smuggling... it was unnecessary to put him through that, and to put his family through seeing that on the TV.
But anyway. Tick tock, Saddam. You'll be free soon - you won't ever have to answer for your crimes again, because they're going to kill you, and since there isn't an afterlife you'll be the one getting the good end of the deal!
If you ask me, he should become a test-bed for life-extension technologies. That way, we can make him live *longer* and give him even more misery. But what do I know?
Did he give out fair trials to the people he butchered?"
Giving out fair trials *separates* us from assholes like Hussein. Besides - it might've taken longer, but he'd still be guilty. He'd still be hanged. If it had been done tastefully, the sensationalist coverage would've been lessened and his crazy assed antics wouldn't have gotten the airplay they got from this very public show trial.
Personally? I reckon a lot of fuss would've been avoided if they'd just filled in his hidey-hole with sand. But... its like this. What do we become, as 'civilised humans' when we say 'Everyone deserves a fair trial... except that guy. Oh, and him. And maybe him too'.
A line must be drawn somewhere - nothing would've been lost by organising a trial with a bit more dignity and legal credibility. He'd still be dancing at the end of a rope in the end.
"Yeah, what was his name? Nyguyen? Something like that. Funny how the name goes outter yer head after it happens."
I remember his face well enough, and I remember the way they carted him out afterwards. It's bad enough they hanged the poor sod, but to drag him out of the prison in a flimsy white sheet... no dignity, and no respect for a human life. I don't really care how eager Singapore were to prove their hardline stance on drug smuggling... it was unnecessary to put him through that, and to put his family through seeing that on the TV.
But anyway. Tick tock, Saddam. You'll be free soon - you won't ever have to answer for your crimes again, because they're going to kill you, and since there isn't an afterlife you'll be the one getting the good end of the deal!
If you ask me, he should become a test-bed for life-extension technologies. That way, we can make him live *longer* and give him even more misery. But what do I know?
"Calm down, dude. You're from Russia and have no room to talk about political corruption. What is your government doing about the cancer epidemic due to the Chernobyl fallout."
That's why I "have room" to talk about it. Because I know how it works and because I have seen it. I'm not wearing pink glasses anymore. And by the way MY government said nothing about Chernobyl, simply because Chernobyl, let me tell you, IS NOT in Russia. Maybe you mean Soviet government, so yes - they were not *good* boys. And people of USSR blamed them for it. But I can't see how does it explains faults of modern US government (or do you want me to come back to the times of cowboys and indians, slaves etc. in American history as an arguement of different faults and bloody mistakes?)... I can't see logic in discussion if discussion goes in the way "look at yourself better!".
"But to blame Bush and the US for Saddam's disposition? If Clinton would've been able to run again and win, he would have had to do something about Saddam as well."
Oh man, I don't have any fucking care who's in White House - Clinton or Bush, there's President of USA and that's the end of story for most people of my country (as well as you probably don't care about our President and who he is). And I said nothing at all about what Saddam deserved for his crimes. I said about time then trial was over.
"And to tie in the elections to this verdict? Tell me that's not moronic. C'mon Serry... tell me..."
That's moronic. But trial was over because of elections, not vice versa... C'mon, Microwave, do you really think that Magic Tour have started without purposes to sell more of AKOM albums? Do you really think that Muslims burn flags of country and dancing around when Septmeber 11th came without any *back* (I don't know how you call it on English, sorry) thought? And who's naive here then?
That's why I "have room" to talk about it. Because I know how it works and because I have seen it. I'm not wearing pink glasses anymore. And by the way MY government said nothing about Chernobyl, simply because Chernobyl, let me tell you, IS NOT in Russia. Maybe you mean Soviet government, so yes - they were not *good* boys. And people of USSR blamed them for it. But I can't see how does it explains faults of modern US government (or do you want me to come back to the times of cowboys and indians, slaves etc. in American history as an arguement of different faults and bloody mistakes?)... I can't see logic in discussion if discussion goes in the way "look at yourself better!".
"But to blame Bush and the US for Saddam's disposition? If Clinton would've been able to run again and win, he would have had to do something about Saddam as well."
Oh man, I don't have any fucking care who's in White House - Clinton or Bush, there's President of USA and that's the end of story for most people of my country (as well as you probably don't care about our President and who he is). And I said nothing at all about what Saddam deserved for his crimes. I said about time then trial was over.
"And to tie in the elections to this verdict? Tell me that's not moronic. C'mon Serry... tell me..."
That's moronic. But trial was over because of elections, not vice versa... C'mon, Microwave, do you really think that Magic Tour have started without purposes to sell more of AKOM albums? Do you really think that Muslims burn flags of country and dancing around when Septmeber 11th came without any *back* (I don't know how you call it on English, sorry) thought? And who's naive here then?
I think this might be a theory worth considering, Serry, if it weren't for the other factors.
Saddam's trial makes for good TV (for some people - not me), but the trial outcome is not what most Americans have been worried about.
Nobody knows what is best to do (from this point forward) and nobody has a good feeling about democracy being possible in the middle east anymore. This is what Americans have to consider when going to vote, not Saddam's verdict.
Saddam's trial makes for good TV (for some people - not me), but the trial outcome is not what most Americans have been worried about.
Nobody knows what is best to do (from this point forward) and nobody has a good feeling about democracy being possible in the middle east anymore. This is what Americans have to consider when going to vote, not Saddam's verdict.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think this might be a theory worth considering, Serry, if it weren't for the other factors.
Saddam's trial makes for good TV (for some people - not me), but the trial outcome is not what most Americans have been worried about.
Nobody knows what is best to do (from this point forward) and nobody has a good feeling about democracy being possible in the middle east anymore. This is what Americans have to consider when going to vote, not Saddam's verdict.[/QUOTE]
Fair point!
Saddam's trial makes for good TV (for some people - not me), but the trial outcome is not what most Americans have been worried about.
Nobody knows what is best to do (from this point forward) and nobody has a good feeling about democracy being possible in the middle east anymore. This is what Americans have to consider when going to vote, not Saddam's verdict.[/QUOTE]
Fair point!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Oh man, I don't have any fucking care who's in White House - Clinton or Bush, there's President of USA and that's the end of story for most people of my country (as well as you probably don't care about our President and who he is). And I said nothing at all about what Saddam deserved for his crimes. I said about time then trial was over.[/QUOTE]
Yes, exactly! It doesn't matter who's President. Clearly, agendas aren't going to agree with everybody.
I thought that somebody needed to shut the blame game up and have a discussion on what to do about it, which is what we've ended up doing. Didn't mean to anger or upset y'all. But any attacks on US Policy I have every right to defend. Now if you guys have a brother in Iraq, then you'd probably understand my reasonings better. He's not risking his life for some sort of Republican conspiracy. He's doing what he, and everyone in his entire family agrees, is the right thing to be doing.
Yes, exactly! It doesn't matter who's President. Clearly, agendas aren't going to agree with everybody.
I thought that somebody needed to shut the blame game up and have a discussion on what to do about it, which is what we've ended up doing. Didn't mean to anger or upset y'all. But any attacks on US Policy I have every right to defend. Now if you guys have a brother in Iraq, then you'd probably understand my reasonings better. He's not risking his life for some sort of Republican conspiracy. He's doing what he, and everyone in his entire family agrees, is the right thing to be doing.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]¼Microwave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Oh man, I don't have any fucking care who's in White House - Clinton or Bush, there's President of USA and that's the end of story for most people of my country (as well as you probably don't care about our President and who he is). And I said nothing at all about what Saddam deserved for his crimes. I said about time then trial was over.[/QUOTE]
Yes, exactly! It doesn't matter who's President. Clearly, agendas aren't going to agree with everybody.
I thought that somebody needed to shut the blame game up and have a discussion on what to do about it, which is what we've ended up doing. Didn't mean to anger or upset y'all. But any attacks on US Policy I have every right to defend. Now if you guys have a brother in Iraq, then you'd probably understand my reasonings better. He's not risking his life for some sort of Republican conspiracy. He's doing what he, and everyone in his entire family agrees, is the right thing to be doing.[/QUOTE]
Of course, he's risking his life to make Halliburton richer.
There's no better sacrifice than putting the life on the line to make the wealthy even wealthier than before.
Yes, exactly! It doesn't matter who's President. Clearly, agendas aren't going to agree with everybody.
I thought that somebody needed to shut the blame game up and have a discussion on what to do about it, which is what we've ended up doing. Didn't mean to anger or upset y'all. But any attacks on US Policy I have every right to defend. Now if you guys have a brother in Iraq, then you'd probably understand my reasonings better. He's not risking his life for some sort of Republican conspiracy. He's doing what he, and everyone in his entire family agrees, is the right thing to be doing.[/QUOTE]
Of course, he's risking his life to make Halliburton richer.
There's no better sacrifice than putting the life on the line to make the wealthy even wealthier than before.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Of course, he's risking his life to make Halliburton richer.
There's no better sacrifice than putting the life on the line to make the wealthy even wealthier than before.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]¼Microwave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You anti-US and anti-Bush people are so stupidly funny.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Of course, he's risking his life to make Halliburton richer.
There's no better sacrifice than putting the life on the line to make the wealthy even wealthier than before.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]¼Microwave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You anti-US and anti-Bush people are so stupidly funny.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Keep playing the patriotic card with us, it won't work.
That whole trick of claiming that anyone who doesn't support Bush administration is anti-American is so 2003. It seems like your mentality is 3 years behind everybody else's.
That whole trick of claiming that anyone who doesn't support Bush administration is anti-American is so 2003. It seems like your mentality is 3 years behind everybody else's.
Nevermind.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"Calm down, dude. You're from Russia and have no room to talk about political corruption. What is your government doing about the cancer epidemic due to the Chernobyl fallout."
That's why I "have room" to talk about it. Because I know how it works and because I have seen it. I'm not wearing pink glasses anymore. And by the way MY government said nothing about Chernobyl, simply because Chernobyl, let me tell you, IS NOT in Russia. Maybe you mean Soviet government, so yes - they were not *good* boys. And people of USSR blamed them for it. But I can't see how does it explains faults of modern US government (or do you want me to come back to the times of cowboys and indians, slaves etc. in American history as an arguement of different faults and bloody mistakes?)... I can't see logic in discussion if discussion goes in the way "look at yourself better!".
"But to blame Bush and the US for Saddam's disposition? If Clinton would've been able to run again and win, he would have had to do something about Saddam as well."
Oh man, I don't have any fucking care who's in White House - Clinton or Bush, there's President of USA and that's the end of story for most people of my country (as well as you probably don't care about our President and who he is). And I said nothing at all about what Saddam deserved for his crimes. I said about time then trial was over.
"And to tie in the elections to this verdict? Tell me that's not moronic. C'mon Serry... tell me..."
That's moronic. But trial was over because of elections, not vice versa... C'mon, Microwave, do you really think that Magic Tour have started without purposes to sell more of AKOM albums? Do you really think that Muslims burn flags of country and dancing around when Septmeber 11th came without any *back* (I don't know how you call it on English, sorry) thought? And who's naive here then?[/QUOTE]
Welcome to talking with 90% of Americans...they don't know the difference between Russia and the USSR. And they don't even know Russia exists unless Rumsfeld is going to talk bad about the "anti-democratic" stuff that Putin does. Unless Americans actually go out and search for the information on the rest of the world, it isn't there.
Oh, and for whoever said Iraq was getting into these elections...it's not playing as big a role as you thought. Especially since this is just midterms; We can't get out of Iraq now even if the Democrats get the majority. This election is more about the complete uselessness and corruption of the government (a la Molesting Pages, Abramhof, no immigration solution, no social security solution....need I go on?)
That's why I "have room" to talk about it. Because I know how it works and because I have seen it. I'm not wearing pink glasses anymore. And by the way MY government said nothing about Chernobyl, simply because Chernobyl, let me tell you, IS NOT in Russia. Maybe you mean Soviet government, so yes - they were not *good* boys. And people of USSR blamed them for it. But I can't see how does it explains faults of modern US government (or do you want me to come back to the times of cowboys and indians, slaves etc. in American history as an arguement of different faults and bloody mistakes?)... I can't see logic in discussion if discussion goes in the way "look at yourself better!".
"But to blame Bush and the US for Saddam's disposition? If Clinton would've been able to run again and win, he would have had to do something about Saddam as well."
Oh man, I don't have any fucking care who's in White House - Clinton or Bush, there's President of USA and that's the end of story for most people of my country (as well as you probably don't care about our President and who he is). And I said nothing at all about what Saddam deserved for his crimes. I said about time then trial was over.
"And to tie in the elections to this verdict? Tell me that's not moronic. C'mon Serry... tell me..."
That's moronic. But trial was over because of elections, not vice versa... C'mon, Microwave, do you really think that Magic Tour have started without purposes to sell more of AKOM albums? Do you really think that Muslims burn flags of country and dancing around when Septmeber 11th came without any *back* (I don't know how you call it on English, sorry) thought? And who's naive here then?[/QUOTE]
Welcome to talking with 90% of Americans...they don't know the difference between Russia and the USSR. And they don't even know Russia exists unless Rumsfeld is going to talk bad about the "anti-democratic" stuff that Putin does. Unless Americans actually go out and search for the information on the rest of the world, it isn't there.
Oh, and for whoever said Iraq was getting into these elections...it's not playing as big a role as you thought. Especially since this is just midterms; We can't get out of Iraq now even if the Democrats get the majority. This election is more about the complete uselessness and corruption of the government (a la Molesting Pages, Abramhof, no immigration solution, no social security solution....need I go on?)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Nevermind.[/QUOTE]
Donna I got your point and I agree with you.
:)
Donna I got your point and I agree with you.
:)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Keep playing the patriotic card with us, it won't work.
That whole trick of claiming that anyone who doesn't support Bush administration is anti-American is so 2003. It seems like your mentality is 3 years behind everybody else's.[/QUOTE]
Yep, and once the Dems get a President (laughs) all the Rush Limbaughs will be popping up claiming the same sad excuses. Remember "it's Clinton's fault?"
Actually it your mentality, and apparently others, that think Bush makes every American decision. Maybe if you accepted the fact that there's more than two or three people to blame, instead of the "Bush is dumb" club, then we'd agree more, but it's nice not to agree also.
Russia's just as guilty for the mess over there also, but I guess a few of you forgot about pre-US Afghanistan. England stirred up the Indionesian/far east mess. But you keep saying it's all George Bush.
I refuse to insult you personally, though. You have your own way of arguing as do I. I certainly hope you're not really taking it personally. I'm not afraid to stand against your "us", though.
That whole trick of claiming that anyone who doesn't support Bush administration is anti-American is so 2003. It seems like your mentality is 3 years behind everybody else's.[/QUOTE]
Yep, and once the Dems get a President (laughs) all the Rush Limbaughs will be popping up claiming the same sad excuses. Remember "it's Clinton's fault?"
Actually it your mentality, and apparently others, that think Bush makes every American decision. Maybe if you accepted the fact that there's more than two or three people to blame, instead of the "Bush is dumb" club, then we'd agree more, but it's nice not to agree also.
Russia's just as guilty for the mess over there also, but I guess a few of you forgot about pre-US Afghanistan. England stirred up the Indionesian/far east mess. But you keep saying it's all George Bush.
I refuse to insult you personally, though. You have your own way of arguing as do I. I certainly hope you're not really taking it personally. I'm not afraid to stand against your "us", though.