August 31st bits & bobs

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The really pathetic thing is that someone kept a record of that.

Indeed. Reminds me of a column by Mark Steyn: "In London, the BBC's World Affairs Editor John Simpson was anonymously briefed by "senior civil servants" who described Bush as "a bear of very little brain" and his Middle East speech as "puerile," "absurdly ignorant" and "ludicrous." Mr. Simpson declared that this marked a sea-change in Anglo-American relations. Anyone wondering why the Bush Administration pays no attention to its allies should consider those remarks of Sir Hugh Sless-Auld-ffarquahar or whoever it was. I'll bet Sir Hugh had been polishing that "bear of little brain" crack (that's a Winnie-the-Pooh allusion, for you non-intellectuals) before Simpson showed up. But, frankly, the Bush moron gags have all been done. Sir Hugh cracking Dubya dummy jokes is like your gram'pa putting on a Travolta suit and doing Saturday Night Fever: Even if he could pull it off, it's still squaresville."

 

How true. And these are supposed to be our allies? Please, don't make me laugh. There's an old proverb that runs, "God save me from my friends! - and I shall take care of my enemies." I feel the truth of that proverb more every day.

 

The Europeans are reduced to ostentatious hand-wringing and loud but unfounded protestations of relevance, wisdom, and sophistication. Why do we ignore them? They can't do much else. Not only have they lost the ability to act, they've lost the ability to think. Steyn, again: "Never mind walking the walk, they can't even talk the talk."

 

Mystery Eskimo, Zorin Industries: thanks for being such an excellent pair of examples. Why should anyone engage buffoons like you in debate? Serious people are needed to discuss serious issues, and the only contributions you're capable of making are the same tired old cowboy jokes you've been parroting for the past two years.

 

Which, by the way, were never even really insulting, let alone witty. The stereotypical cowboy talks straight, keeps his promises, and backs up every word he says. Given a choice between a cowboy and a wine-slurping, cheese-eating, lisping surrender-monkey sissy with no muscles in his arms, I'll take the cowboy.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Europeans countries like England and France still seem to think that they still hold a high place in world affairs. In reality France's real power died after WWI, and England after WWII. There unwilling the expect that they need the U.S. alot more than we need them.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

America should kick UN out of America, I meant that the U.S should kick the U.N parliament out of NY

Eleven minutes and two cigarettes ago, I finished writing a position paper which specifies in detail the reasons for precisely this necessary and long overdue action. The very existence of the UN in its present form and with its present membership rolls is antithetical to the nature of our democracy.

 

No, I'm not a redneck hick who thinks a world government with black helicopters is about to launch an invasion of the United States. That isn't going to happen. I am concerned - no, check that, I'm furious - about the fact that an organisation we created in order to civilise the world has been hijacked and used against us in exactly the same way that our aeroplanes were hijacked and used against us on 9/11.

 

Simply stated, top-down rule doesn't work. It is fundamentally anti-American. Let the Brussels bureaucrats keep their international parliaments; we have town councils, and they work much better.

We don't need to cooperate with the UN. We shouldn't even consult them, much less continue to fund them. We shouldn't try to tiptoe around the ICC; we should denounce it and tear up the charter. It isn't worth the paper it was written on. We should tell everyone around the world in plain and simple terms that if they ever try to prosecute an American, any American, through that vile and unconstitutional travesty of justice, the Marines will land in Den Haag.

The UN must go. It's no longer merely farcical that we were kicked off the HRC while Saudi Arabia remained, that we're kicked off the ACABQ even as we're supposed to foot a quarter of the bill and the overwhelming majority of military operations. It's obscene, intolerable, and unforgivable.

 

Not only does the UN undermine our democracy, it corrupts our morality and clouds our thinking. It's time to stop pretending that we have to respect everyone equally. Cultures are not equal, no matter what anyone tries to claim. The Moslem religion-culture is inferior to Western culture, and that's all there is to it.

 

Let me be crystal clear about this, since people like papacita05 love to nail themselves to imaginary crosses and hang there, bewailing the cruelty of the hard iron spikes of truth.

 

Listen up: I don't care if you want to bang your head against the floor five times a day, grow a retarded frizzy beard, or run laps around a big black cube in your pyjamas with a bunch of unwashed illiterates, just as I don't care if you want to provide masturbatory fantasies for a sanctimonious old transvestite in a wooden box, or contemplate your navel while tying your legs in a reef knot, or idolise a stone penis as the centre of the universe. Knock yourself out. Heck, feel free to sit on a hillside and shout "Aliens!" at passing jets, if that blows up your skirt.

 

But when you burn little girls alive because their ankles are showing, when you send children to blow themselves up in pizza parlours, when you tout the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as gospel, when you stone rape victims to death, when you murder someone and call it an "honour killing," and when you shout "Death to America," don't expect me to have any patience whatsoever for you or your bloody holy book.

Practice your religion in peace if you can. It could be no more ridiculous and malignant than any of the others, in theory. But if you say you're obliged to kill or convert all Christians and Jews and enshrine Islam as the only law across the entire world, if brutal coercion is your understanding of the word "peace," if you call terrorists "martyrs" and reward their families, you should expect to be exterminated. Some of you may be just harmlessly silly; however, many of you are very far from harmless. We were forced to face that fact last year, when 3000 innocent people were butchered. And your collective silence in the wake of that horror speaks volumes.

 

This is the twenty-first century. I don't care how advanced or enlightened you say you were a thousand years ago; you're evil, worthless, murdering scum now. You are a blight, a cancer. And it is our right, no, our duty, to make this a finer world.

 

In our image.

 

Democracy, liberty, justice: these are not only the watchwords of civilisation, they are the very foundations of any and all acceptable societies. They are universal and unchanging first principles. Deviation cannot be tolerated save at the expense of human life, and without our direction, you have deviated in the most repulsive and abhorrent ways imaginable.

 

Change or die.

[Zorin Industries 0]

The Romans, Greeks, Germans, and British all tried to recreate the World in their own images.

 

Their Empires all crumbled to dust. Why should your'es be any different?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Your examples are foolish and ill-considered, as usual. Not one of the historical examples you cited was a representational democracy. All were self-interested. Those empires were only as strong as their governments and their armies, and the resentment they engendered was constant and immutable.

We have a national interest in recreating the world, but it doesn't involve exploitation. And we the people are the government. The "empire" we would impose would not rise or fall on the basis of one administration's actions, nor that of two, nor three, nor ten. The Constitution is a self-correcting safeguard.

 

Watch and learn.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

This is the twenty-first century. I don't care how advanced or enlightened you say you were a thousand years ago; you're evil, worthless, murdering scum now. You are a blight, a cancer. And it is our right, no, our duty, to make this a finer world.

 

In our image.

 

Democracy, liberty, justice: these are not only the watchwords of civilisation, they are the very foundations of any and all acceptable societies. They are universal and unchanging first principles. Deviation cannot be tolerated save at the expense of human life, and without our direction, you have deviated in the most repulsive and abhorrent ways imaginable.

 

Change or die.

Marney, I can usually agree with you in terms of wanting revenge on those who've wronged us, but this I feel is a bad example, and here's why:

 

That's essentially the exact attitude as our enemies. I mean, if you really feel that's true, which I'm sure you do, how does that make us any better?

 

Seriously, just substitute the phrase "Rule by the Islamic church" for "Democracy, liberty, justice" and you've got the terrorist mission statement.

 

For you response, which i'm sure will have a pH of 0.2, please consider the fact that your words don't differ much from the diatribes of those that hate us. Same attitude, different flag.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

That's essentially the exact attitude as our enemies... substitute the phrase "Rule by the Islamic church" for "Democracy, liberty, justice" and you've got the terrorist mission statement.

Read that statement well, everyone. This is the degree to which the poisonous doctrines of "pluralistic multiculturalism" can lobotomise even someone who seems as smart and blessed as Agent of Oblivion. He's obviously intelligent, he's obviously concerned and informed, he expresses himself more clearly than many people on this board, and he's an American, a citizen of the finest, greatest, and freest nation in the history of the world.

And yet, and yet.

 

AoO, you're absolutely right. If we could substitute "Rule by Islam" for "Democracy, liberty, justice," we would indeed have the terrorist mission statement.

 

However, there is no possible way to make that substitution. "Rule by Islam" and "Democracy, liberty, justice" are polar opposites. They do not exist at once save in a state of absolute war.

 

It's like saying to a fireman, "Put water on the fire? What? You might as well say, 'put gasoline on the fire.' Change one word - just one word! - and you could be a pyromaniac instead of a fireman."

Well yes, but what a difference that one word makes. Adding gasoline to the fire will make it spread, burning longer and hotter, consuming more and more in the process. Adding water to the fire might send up a huge cloud of steam, it might make the fire sizzle, spark, and flare for a moment, but eventually the water will put the fire out.

 

You ask, "How does that make us any better?" And, unfortunately, your question has been, and in the days to come, shall be again, repeated seriously and answered incorrectly by millions of Americans infected with the same ideological disease. I'll answer it correctly here. Listen closely, because you won't want to hear this. It is anathema to your disease. Medicine always is.

 

It makes us "better" because that is how "better" is defined. Democracy, liberty, and justice are unequivocally, objectively of the GOOD. Rule by Islam is unequivocally, objectively of the EVIL. They cannot be equated in even one meaningful way.

 

Perhaps in form, AoO, my words "don't differ much from the diatribes of those that hate us." But in substance, they are earth and sky, fire and water.

"Same attitude, different flag?" Yes. But the flag with the crescent and the sword stands for hatred, subjugation, and some of the vilest forms of moral, intellectual, physical, and social slavery extant.

 

The other flag, now, that lovely and glorious Star-Spangled Banner - she stands for liberty and justice for all.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Your examples are foolish and ill-considered, as usual. Not one of the historical examples you cited was a representational democracy. All were self-interested. Those empires were only as strong as their governments and their armies, and the resentment they engendered was constant and immutable.

We have a national interest in recreating the world, but it doesn't involve exploitation. And we the people are the government. The "empire" we would impose would not rise or fall on the basis of one administration's actions, nor that of two, nor three, nor ten. The Constitution is a self-correcting safeguard.

 

Watch and learn.

Yes, but the resentment for the U.S is not only constant and immutable, but is growing and from many unexpected quarters (Britain, Germany etc.)

 

And lets not pretend that the U.S would spread "Democracy" because of some fake sense of Justice for all. It would be for naked self-interest, and everybody can see that.

 

So lets not try and pretend that the U.S is some form of Messiah on a national level. Its a country which has its own self-interest at heart, just like every other country in the World.

 

Why can't you see that?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

the resentment for the U.S is not only constant and immutable, but is growing and from many unexpected quarters (Britain, Germany etc.)

Unexpected by you, perhaps. Never for an instant did I imagine that sympathy, however hollow, for our cause would last much longer than September 12th. Also, you took my words completely out of context, but I don't really expect anything else from you anymore. The "constant and immutable" resentment I spoke of arose, in the old empires you cited, from a sense of exploitation. Since the "empire" I advocate would not, indeed, could not exploit its subjects, such resentment would be transitory.

 

lets not pretend that the U.S would spread "Democracy" because of some fake sense of Justice for all. It would be for naked self-interest, and everybody can see that.

How precisely would it be in our "naked self-interest" to provide Arabs with indoor plumbing and Plato?

 

lets not try and pretend that the U.S is some form of Messiah on a national level.

Once again, you're dishonestly shifting the terms of the discussion. I spoke in shoulds: prescriptive language, future perfect and subjunctive tenses.

This will be easier if you take the time to learn the King's English before attempting to use it.

 

Why can't you see that?

I'm not used to looking through cracked glasses three feet thick and smeared with offal.

 

Its a country which has its own self-interest at heart, just like every other country in the World.

America is like no other modern-day country in the world, and she has not a single parallel in the past. She is without precedent; she is utterly unique. Her virtue and beauty are beyond compare; her selflessness, without equal. Her power is countless orders of magnitude above and beyond all others'. She has made mistakes, but she has also done immeasurable good, good which doesn't just balance but overwhelms the incidental harms. She is the one nation in history to be respected and trusted without question, not only by her friends, but also by her enemies. If she is not the Messiah now, she must and she shall rise to that task, and bear that burden, even as she has risen to other tasks, and borne other burdens, in years gone by. No one else can.

 

Why can't you see that?

[Guest DeputyHawk]

I think it's worth pointing out that the mistrust of America from UK Joe Public at the moment is based not on her founding principles and her global democratic mission statement (wrongly interpreted by many as her

sinister imperialism), but on the fact that most people see Bush as an ignorant, illiterate, incompetent buffoon who inspires no confidence whatsoever in his ability to spearhead such a massive undertaking.

 

If Clinton or, dare I say, Al Gore were in the White House, I'm sure there would still be doubt and dissent surrounding the Iraq initiative- and indeed all facets of this fundamentally sound War On Terror- but not nearly on the level we currently see due to Bush's striking lack of credibility (as well as his unfathomable complete lack of respect for his allies). Hell, Marney, you should run for the position yourself - your passion, knowledge and intelligence almost have me putting my hand on my chest and reaching for the flag.

 

If it comes to war, and the way things are going it probably will, I would unhestitatingly fight and die for my country, for yours and above all else for democracy, but until that time arrives I will stand firm in my belief that war is an unnecessary, avoidable, short-sighted, stupid and apocalyptic course for America to set. And as long as America has such an unnecessary, avoidable, short-sighted, stupid and apocalyptic captain at the helm of its ship, the chances are that the rest of the world will think so too.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Marney, you should run for the position yourself - your passion, knowledge and intelligence almost have me putting my hand on my chest and reaching for the flag.

Thanks, sweetie; that's very flattering. In my opinion, though, it's such a high compliment precisely because of the conduct and ability of the President at whose pleasure I serve, and as long as you continue to insult him I can't accept it.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Why can't you see that?

Because I simply don't believe it. The same way you don't believe that your'e country can do any wrong.

 

For someone with your obvious intelligence and cycnisicm, I find you dangerously naive when it comes to this issue. If you look to the past you see every country act in its own self interests, thats fair enough thats why countries exist.

 

P.S I saw a film called "The Last Supper" last night. Its about a bunch of students who murder people whos views they don't agree with. Required viewing for anyone posting in this forum I think

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

It's like saying to a fireman, "Put water on the fire? What? You might as well say, 'put gasoline on the fire.' Change one word - just one word! - and you could be a pyromaniac instead of a fireman."

Well yes, but what a difference that one word makes. Adding gasoline to the fire will make it spread, burning longer and hotter, consuming more and more in the process. Adding water to the fire might send up a huge cloud of steam, it might make the fire sizzle, spark, and flare for a moment, but eventually the water will put the fire out.

 

It makes us "better" because that is how "better" is defined. Democracy, liberty, and justice are unequivocally, objectively of the GOOD. Rule by Islam is unequivocally, objectively of the EVIL. They cannot be equated in even one meaningful way.

 

Yes. But the flag with the crescent and the sword stands for hatred, subjugation, and some of the vilest forms of moral, intellectual, physical, and social slavery extant.

True, but it's possible to make that point about anything. What makes this different is, we're not talking about water or gasoline being poured on a fire, we're talking about bombs being poured onto living people. Human beings. No matter who considers themself the arsonist or the fireman, the building still ends up as rubble.

 

As far as right and wrong, good and evil go, of course we're in the right to want revenge, like I said before, we just need to clarify who is the enemy and who is not. 2000 pounds of high explosives wrapped in steel cannot make that distinction. We don't need to take out everyone who looks like the enemy along with the enemy itself. We're not perfect and almighty just because we've suffered.

 

For what it's worth, Saudi Arabia did actually officially outlaw slavery, in the 1950's I believe....

[Guest Cancer Marney]

She has made mistakes, but she has also done immeasurable good

you don't believe that your'e country can do any wrong.

Could you please learn to read, so I won't have to keep repeating myself?

 

For someone with your obvious intelligence and cycnisicm

Cynicism is the last refuge of the weak and the irrelevant. It is the hallmark of Europe.

I'm not a cynic. I'm a realist. Often, I'm a pessimist as well, but fundamentally I'm an idealist. I don't care very much if something looks impossible at the outset. If it's worth doing, we should still do it. And the war on radical Islam and the terrorists it breeds is worth fighting.

 

If you look to the past you see every country act in its own self interests

Again, you're flat-out wrong. Explain our intervention in Somalia, Bosnia, and Israel. Hell, explain our intervention in Kuwait. Contrary to the knee-jerk line about oil, it wasn't in our direct interest to invade Iraq. We could easily have switched to another country for our energy needs. The United States acts in her interests, of course, but she also acts altruistically. Even the Europeans sometimes act out of pure altruism.

 

You want to call me naive, fine. I can back up everything I say, and that's exactly what I've done in this thread. You can't. Your tired, whiny, pathetic cynicism is without foundation and without intelligence. It's not enough to assume the worst and shriek "Naif!" at the top of your lungs at anyone who disagrees. That's not an argument. That's the equivocal screed of a moral degenerate.

 

If you don't care enough to want to make the world a better place, that's your right. Sit in the peanut gallery and carp and cackle to yourself all you want. History is passing by, and people like you are swirling like so much flotsam in the eddies.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

we're talking about bombs being poured onto living people. Human beings.

Osama bin Laden and his cohorts are human beings in only the most rudimentary sense, and I have no problems at all with such humans being reduced to their component atoms by JDAMs and Hellfires.

 

As far as right and wrong, good and evil go, of course we're in the right to want revenge, like I said before, we just need to clarify who is the enemy and who is not. 2000 pounds of high explosives wrapped in steel cannot make that distinction.

No, but the people who deploy the explosives can and do.

 

We're not perfect and almighty just because we've suffered.

There's only One who is perfect and almighty. We're good, just, and incomparably powerful, however, and that's an acceptable substitute.

 

For what it's worth, Saudi Arabia did actually officially outlaw slavery, in the 1950's I believe....

I'm sure this will be news to millions of women and Shias. You might want to go over there and tell them. Don't take any Scotch with you from Edinburgh, though, or you might be beheaded. Just a friendly reminder.

 

EDIT: whoops... for some reason, I thought I was responding to DH. Thus the Scotch from Edinburgh crack.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

we're talking about bombs being poured onto living people. Human beings.

Osama bin Laden and his cohorts are human beings in only the most rudimentary sense, and I have no problems at all with such humans being reduced to their component atoms by JDAMs and Hellfires.

 

For what it's worth, Saudi Arabia did actually officially outlaw slavery, in the 1950's I believe....

I'm sure this will be news to millions of women and Shias. You might want to go over there and tell them. Don't take any Scotch with you from Edinburgh, though, or you might be beheaded. Just a friendly reminder.

Hey, neither do I, in fact, I say fire away in that respect, but I do have a problem with the shrapnel from the explosion ripping the family down the street to shreds. Of course, I realize war is war, and there's nothing really that can be done to prevent that while still attacking targets of military importance, but still...

 

I should've added the eyeroll face with the slavery comment, since I was implying one. Technically they can't buy and sell people as property anymore. The mideast: paragon of social progress.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Yeah, that's fair enough, but we do do everything we can to minimize civilian casualties, and we don't deliberately target civilians. That's a hell of a lot more than anyone can say about the other side.

[Guest MR. COOLING]

On why the British are not supporting a war with Iraq here are the reasons that I have came up:

 

1) The whole "War on Terror" idea, many in Britian (I include myself in this) found it annoying that we were expected to count "America's" loss as ours (i.e. Sept 11th was an attack on Western Civilistation) when America had taken such an ambivalent attitude to our own trouble with terrorism i.e. the IRA.

 

Also there was the wider thing that we in European not only didn't exactly feel what Sept 11th felt like (many times America reminds me of France between the two wars, the French had lost 25% of their 18-25 year olds and so this made them hate the Germans in a way Britian and America couldn't comprehend) but also the fact that we being used to terroism and being under military threat didn't have the shock of being attacked.

 

This really was Bush's fault, he shyed away from calling the war on terror what it really is/should be, which is a crusade against Radical Islam, something that threatens and wishes ill harm on us all of which Al'Queada is not just the thin-end of the wedge but also the most incomptent as compared to the Saudis who have been using their money to twist the Arab and wider muslim world against America and the West. It should also be noted as Mark Steyn said that he lost the best chance of the right to fight back against all the multi-cultural nonsense that has infected our body politic-cultural.

 

2 No one trusts Bush/Blair

 

The fact is Bush comes across just like Reegan did as a dumb hick and the opinion formers in Europe don't like dumb hicks just like their own provincial populations. Now I above all people should criticse someone for their English but for the most powerful guy in the state he does sound kinda dumb, also his thumb-tumping addresses just seem like patrotism by numbers and don't inspire me (and I speak as someone who wells up when I hear Churchill).

Also Blair just seems to be sucking up to Bush desperatly trying to get on the big stage indeed the best way to describe Blair is to say he's a starfucker. He also again cannot do the whole "oratory thing" and inspire people and so hasn't even tried.

 

3) The arguements make no sense

 

The fact is I support the attack on Iraq now for the following reasons:

 

1) A launching base for a wider war on the "radical muslim" world

2) To reduce our dependency on Saudi oil (although I'd prefer if would use more reliable sources like Canda)

3) To insitute a colonial scheme to emphasie Iraq's westerness, so the muslims can see what life would be like in a "satanic" world.

4) Because it seems he is corrupting Jordan and bringing it into the anti-western sphere.

5) Because America's image would be fatally damaged by backing down now.

6) Sanctions are continuing wound and regime change is preferable than to continued sanctions

7) Backing down now would be seen as giving Saddam a free reign in developing weapons of mass destruction which almost certainly provoke Israel to invade/attack Iraq as it did in the 80s to stop Iraq's nuclear waepons program

 

All are perfectly good reasons at instead we get nonsense about weapons of mass destruction and links Al'Queada.

 

4) I big portion of Europe hates America

 

Yep the big one. Most young people egged on by a biased (TV) Media and Schooling system think America is to blame for all the world's ills including "Global Warming" and the situation in Africa and think America only acts in its own self interest.

 

Of course as Marney said this all means jackshit, America will go for it

and will probably bribe the UN secruity council to agree with it and then we hope that the War is quick and easy.

 

But thats another issue

 

W.W.I Cooling

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Clinton who finally did something about the whole IRA mess? And wasn't at least one grounded aeroplane on 9/11 supposed to hit a British target? Like you were telling us in the 1940s, this is your war just as much as it is ours.

[Guest MR. COOLING]

The whole multi-cultural thing really irates me espeacilly as someone who was held under its sway for a few months (which is the most shameful thing I've done along with getting caught with the whole "Diana funeral" thing) luckily I'm better now but it seems that the marjoity of people are still stuck on this loop.

 

Look, how can the Anglo-Saxon-European culture that gives it's citzens the right to free speach, worship and wardrobe. Allows people to follow their own morality as long as they don't harm someone else and has reasonably liberal attitudes towards Womena and Homosexuals. Oh and to top it all of has democracy. How can that be on the same level to the Arab world where there is not a single demcoracy, not a single country that gives people true Liberity nor respects the rights of Homosexuals and Women. How can such a world even be called civilisation let alone be placed on the same level as the Western world?

 

It can't simple as that, we are good, they are bad. All the rants about the (mythical) Global Warming and the (beniftical) Imperalism can't change that.

 

W.W.I Cooling

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Absolutely, 100% agreed

[Guest EricMM]

Global warming is no myth aaaand... Arab Americans are no different than "Anglo-Saxon" Americans when it comes to good things for the most part.

 

The middle east is just a broke-ass belligerent place. The people there are going to be broke-ass belligerent people. The Israeli's aren't either because we support them heavily or their Democracy allows them to better fund their people; I don't know which.

 

I completely agree with 90% of what you said. But global warming IS real, the Arctic IS melting, the average temperature IS increasing. But it IS preventable, just plant a tree

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Arab Americans are no different than "Anglo-Saxon" Americans when it comes to good things

No one has been talking about Arab-Americans primarily. Although I'd still say that they need to denounce the abhorrent crimes of their "brothers and sisters" far more unequivocally, far more often, and far more loudly. Their typical silence is blatant, shameless, and obscene.

And what the hell is up with all the damned hyphenation anyway? You usually see "African-American" only when race is an issue, and you almost never see "Anglo-Saxon American." But "Arab-American" and "Moslem-American" crop up all over the place, no matter what the context - though it's usually in the middle of a condemnation of the United States or her allies. Why have I never heard "Christian-American?" "Jewish-American" is used mainly by anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. "Jewish-Americans" call themselves Jews when talking about their religion, and Americans when talking about their nationality.

So why is this kind of hyphenation so exclusive? To whom do these Moslems owe their allegiance, their faith or their country?

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." - Matthew 6:24

It's long past time for them to make it crystal clear where their loyalties lie, especially groups which denounce America regularly, such as MAYA, CAIR, and the AMC. If you're an American, you're an American, full stop. If you aren't, say so. Whose side are you on?

 

global warming IS real, the Arctic IS melting, the average temperature IS increasing. But it IS preventable, just plant a tree

See, this is exactly what I meant when I said "optimism" like yours is dangerous. "Just plant a tree?" I'll pray to God that was a joke, but in my heart I know it wasn't.

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

Let's bear something else in mind. You in Europe that are adopting this high and mighty attitude you accuse us of and attack our leader, which we aren't doing, are the next targets on the list. You're Western Civilization as well and just as much hated, the only reason you haven't heard anything yet is because the USA is still around.

 

As for you not caring about the USA falling, I send out a great bit <b>bullshit</b> to you. Germany, France, Great Britain, Japan, they all have economies that are highly based off of the one in America. What has the USA done since WW2? We've built Japan to the economic force it is today, we built Europe back up. Now Germany is an incredibly big trade partner with the United States and we helped them get there. After the Marshall Plan, the United States has done a great deal of work to make trade and commerce with Europe enough to get the continent on its feet again and now the USA is the pivotal point of the world economy. Take us out of the equation and the world will stick together only if every country works together to keep a collapse from happening. Why else do we pour money into countries to stabilize economies? Go ahead, tell me you don't care.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

<<<But it IS preventable, just plant a tree>>>

 

...

 

I know that was a joke, but still, you really should reexamine your position on global warming. You seem to overestimate the problem and underestimate the difficulty of fixing it. It's *not* true that we are heading toward an imminent catastrophe, and if we were, it's *not* true that all we'd have to do is use plants for energy. The problem is real and significant, but it's also a long way off, and we have time to slowly and gradually address it, which we are doing. Bush is moving a little too slowly for my tastes, but the world isn't going to end before we get a chance to elect someone else, heh.

[Guest MR. COOLING]

<Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Clinton who finally did something about the whole IRA mess? And wasn't at least one grounded aeroplane on 9/11 supposed to hit a British target? Like you were telling us in the 1940s, this is your war just as much as it is ours.>

 

You've heard what people have been saying this forum, the attack was caused by America's foreign policies. If you emphasie the attack as the important thing instead of the wider Saudi funded Islamio-Facist world then you put the emphasie on America and with the two targets hit (Pentagon and WTC) on her Miltary and Econimic power not its liberalism and democracy which are really threatened by Radical Islam.

 

However saying that yes there was a British target and it was the Houses of Parliament and if they had hit that I would have wanted every last one of them killed after being tortured.

 

Also I'm surprised you quote the whole peace process as something for the USA to be proud about. All that proved is that if you surrender to terrorists completely then they will stop killing you. What we now have in Ulster is a mafia state with the working classes ruled by their respective paramiltaries and the political wing of the IRA sitting on the board of the police.

 

Also I was referring to the arm twisting that successive American governments put on Britian to comprmise and surrender the Unionist community. Also many America's thought the IRA were freedom fighters against the Imperialist British, indeed Gullani called Britian "facist" and commneded the IRA for fighting us.

 

W.W.I Cooling

[Guest EricMM]

It was a joke...

 

but on the other hand, trees are a part of the solution. Not the whole solution, but trees suck up CO2 and if there's anything we need less of, it's CO2.

 

It was a joke, but I was just trying to show that there are various methods, both ecological and economical to cut down emissions, absorb emissions, AND keep your SUV, amazingly.

 

Of course we won't all die from Global warming, there I've said it. But what about our grand kids? Eventually it will become a problem, and starting small steps in the right direction now sets a good trend.

 

Baby steps! /Bob

[Guest MD2020]

P.S I saw a film called "The Last Supper" last night. Its about a bunch of students who murder people whos views they don't agree with. Required viewing for anyone posting in this forum I think

 

 

Thank you. I always did think the Left was dangerous...

[Zorin Industries 0]

Well, Im back from my holiday, 2 days in Dublin, great stuff.

 

I though the last supper was great, cause it showed the worst of both sides of the left/right.

 

P.S I have been reading what I missed since I got home and I have to say, the worst of the left is certainly being represented by a certain persons biggest fan

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Well, Im back from my holiday, 2 days in Dublin, great stuff.

 

I though the last supper was great, cause it showed the worst of both sides of the left/right.

 

P.S I have been reading what I missed since I got home and I have to say, the worst of the left is certainly being represented by a certain persons biggest fan

Nah, that's the worst of mongoloids being represented there.