Saddam challenges Bush to televised debate

[Guest Tim]

My class gave Truman a medal. Rightfully so.

[Guest Brian]

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstatete...maNagasaki.html

[Guest Powerplay]

It doesn't matter how many dipolmats they would send, the Military was REFUSING to listen. Like was mentioned before, they were planning another attack on the Americans after the first bomb was dropped. I believe this was shown also in the movie "Hiroshima", which is a fantastic showing of what happened during the final days of the war.

[Guest JMA]

The left is winning the culture war? Chicken-little much? I swear, for all those who critise the left, few actually know what the left is. I'd say America is far more moderate than it was in the fifties. America is no longer run by WASPs. Get over it.

[Guest Brian]

See, that's where I disagree. You're going to have to understand that in the Samurai tradition, had we not been intent on getting unconditional surrender. That right there, is what would have caused on outlash from the samurai class (kamikaze fighters). And there would have been a huge amount of resentment there.

 

Anyways, the point is we could have avoided using the bombs. Or we could have dropped the bombs on military targets instead of civilian. If we would have waited until Russia entered the war, Japan would havv given up.

 

"If Japan got its way, it would have been left mostly intact, and paid no price whatsoever for the tens of millions killed under Japanese occupation, as well as in POW camps."

 

Problem there is that's not why we got involved in the war in the East, because we had basically let Japan invade Central Asia since the thirties.

[cawthon777 0]

The left is winning the culture war? Chicken-little much? I swear, for all those who critise the left, few actually know what the left is. I'd say America is far more moderate than it was in the fifties. America is no longer run by WASPs. Get over it.

My take on that is I frankly loathe the political correctiveness that has entrenched itself in this culture. We have to watch what we say so no one is offended, we can't refer to African Americans as black, people aren't small - they're vertically challenged, etc.

 

Add that with the bleeding hearts' stance that we are all responsible for slavery and killing the Indians (or Native Americans as I should say) and destroying the cultures of everyone that lived here before the Europeans moved in. ...I don't remember doing any of that.

[Guest JMA]

My take on that is I frankly loathe the political correctiveness that has entrenched itself in this culture. We have to watch what we say so no one is offended, we can't refer to African Americans as black, people aren't small - they're vertically challenged, etc.

 

Add that with the bleeding hearts' stance that we are all responsible for slavery and killing the Indians (or Native Americans as I should say) and destroying the cultures of everyone that lived here before the Europeans moved in. ...I don't remember doing any of that.

I don't see it as a big deal to call someone African or Native American. Seeing as I have some Native in me, I prefer the term to "Indian." Indians are those from India, after all. I think sometimes political correctness goes too far, but not on this issue. People today shouldn't be blamed for slavery or the death of the Natives. We're not responsible for what our ancestors did--they are. Seeing as they're dead they can't be punished. We should simply try to be fair to everyone.

 

I, personally, wish we didn't refer to anyone by race based on skin color or nationality. I think it creates a social division.

[Guest EricMM]

I dunno if this warrents a new topic or not, but Brian brought up a relevent topic.

 

Or we could have dropped the bombs on military targets instead of civilian.

 

The last time I watched the news, they were showing pictures of Iraq building up for war. They are deploying things like Anti-Aircraft weapons and mortars and such on top of or next to things like Hospitals, Food Storage sites, and media buildings. That means when we start striking their AA-guns, we will also be hitting hospitals, and putting international reporters in danger. This seems to be what Iraq wants, but will there still be people blaming the US for targeting civilian sites when these sites contain weaponry? And what should the US do? Avoid taking these sites out?

[cawthon777 0]

The last time I watched the news, they were showing pictures of Iraq building up for war. They are deploying things like Anti-Aircraft weapons and mortars and such on top of or next to things like Hospitals, Food Storage sites, and media buildings. That means when we start striking their AA-guns, we will also be hitting hospitals, and putting international reporters in danger. This seems to be what Iraq wants, but will there still be people blaming the US for targeting civilian sites when these sites contain weaponry? And what should the US do? Avoid taking these sites out?

It's a no-win situation. What's better - to risk the lives of the American people, especially the soldiers that are going off to fight for their country - or to get the tar beaten out of you in the media?

 

I'm glad I'm not the president. Bush will hit those targets, without a doubt. What other choice does he have?

[Guest Some Guy]

My take on that is I frankly loathe the political correctiveness that has entrenched itself in this culture.  We have to watch what we say so no one is offended, we can't refer to African Americans as black, people aren't small - they're vertically challenged, etc.

 

Add that with the bleeding hearts' stance that we are all responsible for slavery and killing the Indians (or Native Americans as I should say) and destroying the cultures of everyone that lived here before the Europeans moved in.  ...I don't remember doing any of that.

I don't see it as a big deal to call someone African or Native American. Seeing as I have some Native in me, I prefer the term to "Indian." Indians are those from India, after all. I think sometimes political correctness goes too far, but not on this issue. People today shouldn't be blamed for slavery or the death of the Natives. We're not responsible for what our ancestors did--they are. Seeing as they're dead they can't be punished. We should simply try to be fair to everyone.

 

I, personally, wish we didn't refer to anyone by race based on skin color or nationality. I think it creates a social division.

Maybe we shoudl stop using the term "Native American" because it makes no sense. I and every otehr person who was born in AMerica is a "Native American". I'll go along with "African American" for those who were born in Africa and immigrated and gained citezenship in AMerica (otherwise they are not American). All these silly titles that should only be used for descriptive means anyway (I.E. desciribing what someone looks like) should just get the fuck out of our venacular.

 

BTW, please don't keep arguing with Brian about the A-Bombs. He'll start posting entire chapters from textbooks, like he did on the EZ Board Smarkboard about two weeks befoer the switch over in a thread about SK's best quotes. No one wants to read all that.

[Guest JMA]

Maybe we shoudl stop using the term "Native American" because it makes no sense. I and every otehr person who was born in AMerica is a "Native American". I'll go along with "African American" for those who were born in Africa and immigrated and gained citezenship in AMerica (otherwise they are not American). All these silly titles that should only be used for descriptive means anyway (I.E. desciribing what someone looks like) should just get the fuck out of our venacular.

Actually, I believe caucasians are referred to as European Americans. I just don't like those descended from the first settled natives to be called "Indians." I also don't like terms such as "black" or "white."

[Guest Some Guy]

Actually, I believe caucasians are referred to as European Americans. I just don't like those descended from the first settled natives to be called "Indians." I also don't like terms such as "black" or "white."

OK, what about all the Blacks in Europe? My point is that you guys on the Left in an attempt to be sensitive to minorities continue to come up with more and more less desriptive tags for them. Every one knows what a balck person or a white person is, a lot of people would be confused by "European American", I would take that to a European immigrant nto necesasarilly a white guy. I honsetly think that if we stopped concentrating so much on what to call who and all this other shit and let minorities just be people, let them just be plain old "Americans" we'd be much better off. Unfortunately their is no special money or votes to be gained if that were the case, that's why the Dems keep playing the race card all the time.

[Guest JMA]

OK, what about all the Blacks in Europe? My point is that you guys on the Left in an attempt to be sensitive to minorities continue to come up with more and more less desriptive tags for them. Every one knows what a balck person or a white person is, a lot of people would be confused by "European American", I would take that to a European immigrant nto necesasarilly a white guy. I honsetly think that if we stopped concentrating so much on what to call who and all this other shit and let minorities just be people, let them just be plain old "Americans" we'd be much better off. Unfortunately their is no special money or votes to be gained if that were the case, that's why the Dems keep playing the race card all the time.

Yeah, that would be nice. But wouldn't people just revert back to using phrases like "black" and "white"? I think instead of calling someone "black" or "white," they could just say "darker skin" or "lighter skin." I'm not really on the Left, per say. I don't consider myself commited enough. But I suppose darker skinned people in Europe would be called African Europeans. It does sound a little silly when you think about it. So, I agree with you to an extint.

[Guest Some Guy]

OK and then they move here and are they now supposed to be called "African European Americans"? it is silly.

 

There is nothing wrong with "Black", "White", "Hispanic", "Oriental", American Indian", etc... They are perfectly fine, short, and descriptive names. There is no malice implied with the simple use of those words.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

The one that kills me is "African-American." Reffering to a black person as "black" is almost taboo now. The correct term should be "American who happens to have black skin." Treating blacks as if they're this foreign culture worthy of having their own sub-culture truly bothers me. I'd wager that most black Americans have deeper roots in this country than a lot of white people. Adding the term "African" to their REAL title of "American" is an insult in my opinion to black Americans. They've been treated like outsiders long enough, let them be Americans as they have just as much (if not more) right to that title than just about anyone else in this country.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

The left is winning the culture war? Chicken-little much?"

 

No, I just pay attention to current events. Get over it...

[Guest JMA]

The left is winning the culture war? Chicken-little much?"

 

No, I just pay attention to current events. Get over it...

I sincerly doupt the left is winning the "culture war." After all, America today is better than it was in the fifties. Women's rights, social diversity, religious diversity, ect.

[Guest cartman]

If someone has Black skin, they are Black. If someone has White skin, they are White.

 

Where's the issue in this?

 

Black, White, Pink, Yellow, Purple, Brown, Orange...we're all PEOPLE. I dont even care if your American or not, we are all just friggin' HUMANS. It's not a big deal what we are called is it?

[Guest LooseCannon]

If the left is indeed winning the culture war, than I for one, couldn't be more pleased about it.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

If the left is indeed winning the culture war, than I for one, couldn't be more pleased about it.

Sex in the street and drugs for all! Are you sure you want the LEFT to be winning the culture war? Or do you want the Democrats to be winning the culture war? There is a difference, a big difference.

[Guest Brian]

Sex in the streets. Drugs for everyone. I'm so in!

[Guest JMA]

Sex in the street and drugs for all! Are you sure you want the LEFT to be winning the culture war?

Hm. Sex in the street, eh? That sounds... pretty cool. I don't do drugs but I don't give a damn who does 'em. It's their body.

[Guest LooseCannon]

If the left is indeed winning the culture war, than I for one, couldn't be more pleased about it.

Sex in the street and drugs for all! Are you sure you want the LEFT to be winning the culture war? Or do you want the Democrats to be winning the culture war? There is a difference, a big difference.

I could give a fuck about the Democrats.

 

I just want to see a world filled with abortions and lolli-pops.

[Guest cartman]

mmm yes...I would love to, someday, see some laws passed that lagalize drive-by shootings on those sick welfare collecting dipshits that stand outside Planned Parenthood and harrass the women going in for abortions.

 

I dont understand where people find the time to stand outside a god damn building all day every day holding signs of dead fetus'. They obviously dont have real jobs or anything, shoot the bastards.

 

/rant

[Guest Some Guy]

Same goes for the dipshits who protest a just war and executions.

[Guest Brian]

Just War?

[Guest Some Guy]

OK, here we go again. Iraq invaded Kuwait, they were defeated soundly and forced out. As a condition of surrender they signed off on the UN resolution to among other things destroy their long range weapons of mass destruction and allow UN weapons inspectors in the country. They did not destroy their long range (93 miles+) WMD and dicked around with the inspectors before kicking them out in 1998 only to let them back in to dick around with them some more when President made it clear that he was serious about enforcing the UN Resolutions and killing Saddam. They violated the UN resolutions, there is no question about that, they've admitted as much today when they agreed (wink wink nudge nudge) to destroy their al Samoud (sp?) long range missiles. And to top that all off Saddam pays Palestian homicide bomber's families, regularilly kills and tortures political dissidents, including the gassing of thousands of Kurds. I'd say that all things considered elimating Saddam and liberating Iraq is pretty just.

[Guest Brian]

Actually, if we would have shown them how to use the gas when we sold it to them, they probably wouldn't have gassed the Kurds. But that's another story.

 

The things that seems to get me is that if he hasn't done anything yet, in the last twelve years, why expect him to do anything now?

[Guest treble charged]

Yeah, that's my main problem with going into Iraq. Sure, Saddam's not exactly a stand-up guy, but all he's doing is sitting in his own country, not hurting anyone over here. Is it really THAT imperative that we go in there as soon as possible?

[Guest Brian]

The only thing I could see him doing is finding some sort of gas or biological weapon to put in the warhead of the Al Samouds, but even then he can only get 100 or so miles out them. That would be quite the dickhead of moves though.