GameBanshee Forums

TEMPLAR67 wrote:. Personally i think the US should leave the UN, all they do is take our money and the spit in our face, no one seems to like the US at all any more, I guess they have forgotten about WW2 when we came in and saved their butts.

Where is the evidence to back up your claims that the US "saved their butts"? How do you know the war would have been lost if the US hadn't stepped in? Was the US the only country involved in the defeat of Hitler and his supporters? Would the US have done so much to help if Pearl Harbour had not been bombed? Did Canada's role in the war have no effect on the outcome? What about that of the French resistance fighters, or those Germans that worked in secret to protect the Jewish community or provide information to the Allied Forces, or the Russians who attacked Hitler from a second front? What about the British mathematicians who cracked the Enigma code? What about all the women who took over the day to day roles that had previously only been carried out by men so that their loved ones could go to fight against Hitler? What about all the European civilians and soldiers who died defending what they believed in?

To any Americans who might misinterpret this post, this is not an attack on the US nor is it any attempt to sound ungrateful for the help the US gave to the allied forces in WW2. I and most other Europeans appreciate that help (and lets also not forget the part Canada also played in the defeat of Hitler), especially considering the war was largely a European affair and so far away from North American soil. I am merely asking to see evidence for TEMPLAR67's claims

I just read an article at CNN that describes what the superior Americans did in Japan immediately after the Japanese surrendered during WWII:

Documents: U.S. troops used 'comfort women' after WWII

Capitalism, freedom, equal rights...Japan had it all, thanks to the Americans. They should still be on their knees thanking us for all that we did for them.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:you may consider the "american god" stereotypical? well at least he isnt telling his ppl to go and blow themselves up .

Well, I don't know every gods of the world, but I don't know any who commands his fidels to blow them up.

on that second part, granted some slave owners were cruel to their slaves, but look at it from the prospective of the other owners, torturing and killing your "property" would cause you to lose money (since you did pay normally quite a bit of money for them) you would want them in the best condition possible so they could produce as much as possible, a weak, beaten slave could not make you as much money. And if every slave was tortured and beaten so badly how come most of them stayed even after they were freed

How does the fact that not every slaver was torturing his slaves can justify slavery? Siberys was not only condemning torture against slaves, he was condemning slavery itself.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:<snip>no one seems to like the US at all any more, I guess they have forgotten about WW2 when we came in and saved their butts. <snip>

Ahh, once again you go on rambling without factuality to back it up. Do you actual want to debate or are you only interested in venting you bias and ignorance? As all you look to be doing is pick random trollish statements and spout them, and then when your argumentation get shot down you move on to another area and just spout more random and trollish without anything to back it up.

The US saved no "butts" in the second world war. They were part of an alliance which "saved butts". Large reasons for the success of the European theater of war goes more to Hitlers military incompetence and the Russian lack of respect for their own soldiers and countrymen.

Besides, if the benchmark for US behaviour should be a 65 year old war, then no wonder why so many people outside the US (and inside) distrusts the country currently. Talk about being ignorant about current issues and history.

Well, I don't know every gods of the world, but I don't know any who commands his fidels to blow them up.

There are several gods that dictate killing yourself in the name of your god will bring rewards. As to what degree of "Killing yourself" means, it varies. It could mean doing anything it takes to defeat an enemy, it could mean honoring defeat in combat and committing suicide as to not further shame your people, and that does exist, it's known as Seppuku.

In any case, back on topic.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:Yes, first off i feel that at least i am superior to these animal-like terrorist...

Okay, so I have to ask you "why do you feel that way?" As you stated in your other thread here in SYM, you're willing to take the life of someone stealing your LCD TV. That makes you superior to an "animal-like terrorist?"

you may consider the "american god" stereotypical? well at least he isnt telling his ppl to go and blow themselves up

I don't believe you're prepared to deal with the can of worms you're opening with that sort of statement.

I see an underlying framework in many of your posts, TEMPLAR67, that tells a reader that you feel superior to others in general. I really don't think you lend much thought to what you wrote here, because untold atrocities over the centuries have been done in the name of this god you're talking about.

on that second part, granted some slave owners were cruel to their slaves, but look at it from the prospective of the other owners, torturing and killing your "property" would cause you to lose money (since you did pay normally quite a bit of money for them) you would want them in the best condition possible so they could produce as much as possible, a weak, beaten slave could not make you as much money. And if every slave was tortured and beaten so badly how come most of them stayed even after they were freed

Has it ever occurred to you that it was the only way of life these people ever knew? Where could they go? Liberia? Another state that was alien to them?

Again, I note your sarcastic " ". Recognize it? I might start keeping a count of those smilies in your posts, and furnish you with the numbers if I see you complain about someone else being sarcastic to you.

Another question for you: have you ever been a slave? I don't think you actually understand what it means, based upon those comments of yours. It's not a job...it's your entire life. It's the purpose for your existence. Everything revolves from that. Especially if you were born into it...and never lived a free day in your life.

I dont believe that these terrorist should be considered human beings, do normal humans saw off ppls heads with a knife? b/c it seems to be becoming common practice over there.that general is somewhat right, for a military solution to work we will have to be far more aggressive and not think about what the rest of the world thinks about us, they will hate us no matter what we do

Yes, by not considering them human beings, it makes whatever measures the US takes in their country more easily justifiable and fit to swallow in a Fox news broadcast. Convenient, ain't it? News at 11. It's just easier that way. Blow em all to smithereens, be aggressive and shoot everyone.

By the way, the preceeding paragraph was sarcastic.

That last part of your quote, "they will hate us no matter what we do," is exactly what the Big American Lie wants us all to believe. Nothing could be further from the truth. There never was a justification nor reason to invade Iraq in the first place, TEMPLAR67. A lie was concocted and delivered to both the American people, and the United Nations, by the Bush Administration. That lie took various forms: mostly Weapons of Mass Destruction, Terrorism, etc. Also, "Saddam tried to kill my daddy" was also one of the motivations for President Bush to carry out this invasion. This did more damage to the reputation of the United States than 40 years of "Cold Warring" ever did.

You sir, just said it all *thumbs up*

Templar67, please see my note in the Gun Control thread.

That last part of your quote, "they will hate us no matter what we do," is exactly what the Big American Lie wants us all to believe. Nothing could be further from the truth. There never was a justification nor reason to invade Iraq in the first place, TEMPLAR67. A lie was concocted and delivered to both the American people, and the United Nations, by the Bush Administration. That lie took various forms: mostly Weapons of Mass Destruction, Terrorism, etc. Also, "Saddam tried to kill my daddy" was also one of the motivations for President Bush to carry out this invasion. This did more damage to the reputation of the United States than 40 years of "Cold Warring" ever did.

So are you saying that terrorism is a lie conceived by bush, if you believe that then you must believe that the CIA destroyed the WTC's . And how do you know why bush chose to go to war in iraq, he had his reasons (hell, even hillary clinton voted for it), if you have some info that the rest of the american public does not, please share.

Again, I note your sarcastic "". Recognize it? I might start keeping a count of those smilies in your posts, and furnish you with the numbers if I see you complain about someone else being sarcastic to you.

the reason for the sarcastics is so you know what i am thinking while i type, and by all means keep count, bus if you seriously have nothing better to do with your time, i suggest you find a hobby.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:So are you saying that terrorism is a lie conceived by bush, if you believe that then you must believe that the CIA destroyed the WTC's . And how do you know why bush chose to go to war in iraq, he had his reasons (hell, even hillary clinton voted for it), if you have some info that the rest of the american public does not, please share.
<snip>

You misread, intentionally or not, what is written in the quoted text.
It did not say terrorisms was a "lie".


As for your second remark, that comes rather close to a flame/personal attack, and you should desist using such at this forum, lest it'll affect your posting privileges.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:So are you saying that terrorism is a lie conceived by bush, if you believe that then you must believe that the CIA destroyed the WTC's . And how do you know why bush chose to go to war in iraq, he had his reasons (hell, even hillary clinton voted for it), if you have some info that the rest of the american public does not, please share.

Did it ever occur to you that many voted for the war because Bush's government used false proves to justify the war? It was AFTER the attack when it came up that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in produce.

And how would you determine terrorism? I'm asking this because you seem to use that word a lot, even in situations where it would be questionable.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:So are you saying that terrorism is a lie conceived by bush, if you believe that then you must believe that the CIA destroyed the WTC's . And how do you know why bush chose to go to war in iraq, he had his reasons (hell, even hillary clinton voted for it), if you have some info that the rest of the american public does not, please share.

I suggest you read my statement again. I'm not sure if your misunderstanding is intentional or not, because what I wrote is fact engraved in platinum. The Bush Administration claimed that they had evidence that Iraq was in possession of a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq sponsored terrorism, to name two justifications. Those were lies used by the Bush Administration to sell this war to both the American people and the world at large via the United Nations. Both were exposed to be falsifications, which is but one reason why Dubyah did not enjoy unilateral support in his invasion of Iraq. The world was not buying his story. Sadly enough, most Americans did.

Understand now?

What makes the Iraq invasion even more odious is the fact that as horrible as Saddam Hussein was, the Iraqi people are now far worse off than they ever were under his rule.

EDIT: As an afterthought, I would like to compare the invasion of Iraq to the Persian Gulf War. I was in the US Army during Operations Desert Shield/Storm. I know a few people who were in the 24th Infantry Division from Ft. Stewart, GA, one of the first units officially deployed in Operation Desert Shield. One of them was a former brother-in-law. Another friend of mine was in the 82nd Airborne.

The Persian Gulf War enjoyed more unilateral support - i.e., many nations of the world supported it, therefore the United Nations backed it - because Iraq invaded a sovereign nation...in this case, Kuwait. There was little room for playing around with facts there. There were concrete objectives attainable by military actions: the destruction of Iraqi fortifications, and the removal of their occupying force from Kuwait.

I'll never forget how flabbergasted most of us were when the objectives were reached, and Gen. Schwarzkopf wanted to push all the way to Baghdad. That was outside of the U.N. directed goals, and I'll give credit to Bush Sr. for abiding by that. That was precisely the *right* thing to do, because invading Iraq was not the goal of the Persian Gulf War.

Despite this, the U.S. military engaged in operations beyond the sphere of that conflict. For example, a month before Operation Desert Storm was launched (Desert Storm was the "ground war" phase), the 82nd Airborne was deployed inside of Iraq against Iraqi military targets. Air Assault platoons were choppered inside of Iraq and inserted at various targets of opportunity. This wasn't reported in the news, nor was it publicized.

Oprah For President!!!

VonDondu wrote:Well, you know what Rudy Giuliani said yesterday: a terrible event like "9/11" can only happen if Democrats are running the country. Obviously, it could never happen if Republicans were in charge.

Of course, the original 9/11 happened under the Republicans...
Apologies to any Chileans, BTW, who of course have their own pre-2001 9/11 tragedy in the CIA sponsored Pinochet coup. My use of the term 'original' 9/11 is in no way intended to downplay the suffering, political incarcerations, and thousands of deaths incurred as a result of said tragedy.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:4. they were invaded for breaking the ceasfire agreement and multiple UN resoulutions

Really? Here in Oz we were told it was because Iraq had WMDs and hence posed an immediate threat to our (well, actually, America's, but everyone knows when you attack the USA you attack the rest of the Western world by extension too) safety, and they might give them to terrorist groups as well. Oh, and Saddam Hussein kicked our puppies, FOR FUN! Alright, I made that last one up... PS HI CHANAK!

TEMPLAR67 wrote:6. I have no problem with NSA wiretapping, the terrorist wont wait on the phone for you to get a warrant, and its not like theyre listening to Mr. Jones talking to his dad, they are listening to suspected terrorist.

If anyone out there feels lonely and wants some company, just send a message like 'Did you see that movie about the TERRORIST plotting to BLOW UP THE WHITE HOUSE? It was THE BOMB!" over the phone. You'll have lots of visitors in no time!

TEMPLAR67 wrote:12. Katrina was not bushes fault the responseability of that falls on the mayor and govenor and the director of fima

There is the little issue of, say, FIMA funding involved.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:Yes, first off i feel that at least i am superior to these animal-like terrorist, and second, if strapping a bomb to yourself in the belief that you will be given 72 virgins if you do it, if that dosent qualify you to be crazy, then i dont know what does.

Totally right. Women who live together tend to synchronize periods after a while. Imagine PMS times 72 every month for eternity, Hell would be a relief by comparison...

TEMPLAR67 wrote:The reason this war is still going on is because we are too concerned about being politically correct instead of fighting a war. the only thing these terrorist understand is violence and pain, the only way to win is to make them too terrifyed to fight us, and just start killing them off. And last time i checked our economy is doin pretty dam good.

OMG, I think I'm in love. Even if you're trolling this stuff is gold. There's way too many quotes I just adore here to list, suffice to say: Odie's back on the 'net for a while, and you and I going to have lots of fun. Please be my friend.
Just for the record, the God of Christianity is the God of Abraham, coincidentally the same God as that of Islam (and Judaism). That's why Judaism, Christianity and Islam are known as "Abrahamic" religions, they all stem from Abraham and (drum roll, please) worship the same God. Oh, and human beings are animals, specifically primates.
I would make an observation about Jesus being put to death for humanity's sins, human sacrifice, and religious martyrdom here but that might start a real fight, so I'll be good.

Have you noticed how difficult it is these days to tell the difference between parody and genuine rightwing beliefs?

VonDondu wrote:Have you noticed how difficult it is these days to tell the difference between parody and genuine rightwing beliefs?

I guess that is because politicians have learned to play a role when in public. So you never know if they are serious or just acting.

We had a TV show here, I don't remember the exact name, but it had the word "circus" in the title. I guess it is how many people perceive politicians: clowns putting up a show.

VonDondu wrote:Have you noticed how difficult it is these days to tell the difference between parody and genuine rightwing beliefs?

It's not difficult at all; the spelling is a dead giveaway!

That brings to mind an intelligently constructed (and funny) column I read recently by Ellis Weiner, former editor of National Lampoon, entitled "Why Conservatives Aren't Funny." Here's an excerpt or two:

"We're compelled to ask this because, what with The Daily Show and The Colbert Report and Real Time With Bill Maher spending most of their time making fun of "conservatives," it seems like there's a disproportionate amount of "liberal" humor on TV.

"But this is an optical illusion. Stewart and Colbert and Maher aren't "doing liberal humor" and they're not "making fun of conservatives." They're doing political humor by making fun of incumbents, the people currently in power who, until lately, have mostly been Republicans. Next year, when the Democrats take the House, the Senate, and the White House, all those shows will make fun of those incumbents..."

"Well, who is left after the Boschian debacle of the last six years? Which Republican with an ounce of intellectual honesty or a gram of insight, still thinks Bush is worth defending because Nancy Pelosi is the real enemy? What kind of person is still able to get a sincere laugh from Dennis Miller, and not see him as a talented opportunist who outsmarted himself and has ended up like a character from an old Twilight Zone, stranded (by his own scheming) forever on a planet of idiots?"

There's a lot more of the same, both trenchantly funny criticism in its own right, and insightful comment about why what passes in the Bushian Empire for conservatism simply isn't entertaining.

You can read the whole thing here.

Siberys wrote:There are several gods that dictate killing yourself in the name of your god will bring rewards. As to what degree of "Killing yourself" means, it varies. It could mean doing anything it takes to defeat an enemy, it could mean honoring defeat in combat and committing suicide as to not further shame your people, and that does exist, it's known as Seppuku.

In any case, back on topic.

You are perfectly right, Siberys, and the martyrs are a good exemple of that. But in most of these situations, death is preferable to something else when faced with a certain situation (like denying your own god, dishonoring your family, etc.) What I meant is that I don't know any god who say that "killing yourself" is mandatory to be considered pious. I would not be surprised that such a god exists in a polytheistic society, but if that is the case, I am pretty sure that god would also be conterbalanced by a peaceful one.

That being said, you are also right on another point: it's getting pretty off topic.

@fable: Thanks for the snippet, and for the link to the entire article. I found it engaging and thought-provoking. The author certainly tapped into a truth regarding the sneering contempt many of the self-proclaimed conservatives in our country display towards any individual or institution which deviates from the cookie-cutter parameters of their particular manifesto. The end result: these people aren't funny at all. In fact, they end up being pitiful in their narcissistic self-aggrandizement and worship of the corporate dollar, perfectly content to destroy the fabric of our society while raking in the dough. Whatever facilitates the efficient accumulation of wealth is sacred to these people.

Some of the finest comedians America has ever seen spent their time lampooning whomever was in power at the time. Roasting politicians and the powerful is a time-honored practice, stretching back to the days of the Court Jester. Granted, those fellows risked losing their heads on a daily basis...however, poking at the powerful and self-important is impossible for some to resist. I understand that the fascination might border on the pathological, but nevertheless it is something a society desperately needs.

Political humor and satire is a strong tradition in America. Take, for example, Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) of late 19th century America. The man was inspired in his lambasting of political figures...particularly his chariactures of the Congress (to paraphrase a bit of his writing: Imagine, dear reader, that you are a Congressman. Now, imagine that you are an idiot. Ah, but I repeat myself).

Cheers for the link(s) @ Fable

Bush is always good for a giggle...
And I must confess, Karl "M.C." Rove's recent rap performance had me in stitches.:laugh: