"Some of my fellow Democrats *are* unpatriotic"

[Justice 0]

Can none of you read?  It wasn't my post.  I'm bouncing ideas from different boards off each other.  Some of you are so quick to attack, you don't realize who you're biting into during the feeding frenzy.

I know. Send that back to whoever wrote it. I saw the quotations. Sorry if you thought that was me bitching at you.

Oops! Sorry!

No problem. I can easily see how the mistake can be made .

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Can none of you read? It wasn't my post. I'm bouncing ideas from different boards off each other. Some of you are so quick to attack, you don't realize who you're biting into during the feeding frenzy.

Put it into quotations next time.

 

Yes, yes I am quick to attack. As cliche as it is right now actively rooting against your country in a war no matter how many buts you put in front of it is disgusting to me and "Un-American". And don't bring the "OMG UN-American means someone disagreeing with the President" b/c you can do that all you want but when deep down you root for your fellow countrymen to die just so your selfish desires will be meant makes you the worst kind of scum.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Just a question to those defending our action in Vietnam: How can a war waged by a Democratic nation be considered "just," when a clear and large majority of people are against it and voted for a man (Nixon) who campaigned on the promise that he'd get us out as soon as he can? How can a war be just when we were fight for corrupt politicians who little better then the Communists who invaded form the North? How can a war be just when it becomes the sing most divisive issue in this nation since slavery, and inspires mass protests across the nation? How can sending a generation of American children to figh and die halfway around the world for an ideology they didn't care about, and for a nation (I'm referring to South Vietnam, not America) in which the majority of it's citizens didn't care about them?

 

That's not a just war. That's Cold War paranoia at it's worst.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

How is it "just" to up and leave and let millions of people get slaughtered?

[Skywarp! 0]

Can none of you read?  It wasn't my post.  I'm bouncing ideas from different boards off each other.  Some of you are so quick to attack, you don't realize who you're biting into during the feeding frenzy.

Put it into quotations next time.

 

Yes, yes I am quick to attack. As cliche as it is right now actively rooting against your country in a war no matter how many buts you put in front of it is disgusting to me and "Un-American". And don't bring the "OMG UN-American means someone disagreeing with the President" b/c you can do that all you want but when deep down you root for your fellow countrymen to die just so your selfish desires will be meant makes you the worst kind of scum.

It was in quotations. Not this B.B.s big box quotes, but the text marks were there nonetheless. But whatever. It happened back there.

[Skywarp! 0]

Just a question to those defending our action in Vietnam: How can a war waged by a Democratic nation be considered "just," when a clear and large majority of people are against it and voted for a man (Nixon) who campaigned on the promise that he'd get us out as soon as he can? How can a war be just when we were fight for corrupt politicians who little better then the Communists who invaded form the North? How can a war be just when it becomes the sing most divisive issue in this nation since slavery, and inspires mass protests across the nation? How can sending a generation of American children to figh and die halfway around the world for an ideology they didn't care about, and for a nation (I'm referring to South Vietnam, not America) in which the majority of it's citizens didn't care about them?

 

That's not a just war. That's Cold War paranoia at it's worst.

Wasn't the supposed "last straw" upon entering the war that a U.S. vessel in the waters over Vietnam was shot at? And is it true or not that years later it turned out to be a false report just to "justify" going in there?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Just a question to those defending our action in Vietnam: How can a war waged by a Democratic nation be considered "just," when a clear and large majority of people are against it and voted for a man (Nixon) who campaigned on the promise that he'd get us out as soon as he can? How can a war be just when we were fight for corrupt politicians who little better then the Communists who invaded form the North? How can a war be just when it becomes the sing most divisive issue in this nation since slavery, and inspires mass protests across the nation? How can sending a generation of American children to figh and die halfway around the world for an ideology they didn't care about, and for a nation (I'm referring to South Vietnam, not America) in which the majority of it's citizens didn't care about them?

 

That's not a just war. That's Cold War paranoia at it's worst.

Wasn't the supposed "last straw" upon entering the war that a U.S. vessel in the waters over Vietnam was shot at? And is it true or not that years later it turned out to be a false report just to "justify" going in there?

Yep.

[Justice 0]

Just a question to those defending our action in Vietnam: How can a war waged by a Democratic nation be considered "just," when a clear and large majority of people are against it and voted for a man (Nixon) who campaigned on the promise that he'd get us out as soon as he can?

... Because we had been there before Nixon took office? Our reasons for getting involved were still good.

 

How can a war be just when we were fight for corrupt politicians who little better then the Communists who invaded form the North?

 

He died in 1963. The Vietnam war went on LONG after that. We were trying to save the people from a worse regieme under Ho Chi Minh while trying to contain Communism in Southeast Asia.

 

How can a war be just when it becomes the sing most divisive issue in this nation since slavery, and inspires mass protests across the nation?

 

Because the media was more concerned with showing dead Americans rather than our successes? That most people were more concerned with not getting drafted than actual peace?

 

How can sending a generation of American children to figh and die halfway around the world for an ideology they didn't care about, and for a nation (I'm referring to South Vietnam, not America) in which the majority of it's citizens didn't care about them?

 

Wow, now THERE'S a loaded question. We didn't send them there to just die, we sent them there to stop the growing threat of Communism and stop a hostile invasion by another country. The same could be said for Korea. Would you argue that was a bad war to fight as well?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The Vatican cardinal who commented on the Saddam story says he is feeling pity for Saddam and said we're treating him like a cow.

 

Way to sharply disagree with the rest of the world.

[Guest MikeSC]

Are you going to vote for a party which was hurt by the capture of Saddam Hussein?

A line in another article makes my point absolutely explicit:

Over on the Dean blog, one worried supporter echoed the view of many pundits about what Saddam's capture means for Dean. "I can't believe this," Carrie B wrote. "I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have chance in this election."

 

Dean's supporters are crying about the capture of a mass murderer, a tyrant, and a vicious sadist. Saddam Hussein is the very reincarnation of Hitler that the Democrats jeeringly try to caricature President Bush as.

Actually, Rush made a point that is scarily creepy to think about: If it happened TODAY --- would Hitler have the same negative historical connotation he has NOW?

 

Think about it --- Germany was never an "imminent threat" to us at the time (he never did try to attack us) and, God knows, "human rights" groups would have complained about HIS treatment (should he have been found alive) as they presently are griping about how Saddam is being treated.

 

Laugh if you wish --- but who could ever imagined ANYBODY attempting to paint Hussein as "sympathetic" against the "evil" U.S.A?

And the people who support Howard Dean are crying. Crying because we ended the rule of a man who murderered half a million people and starved, oppressed, and tortured millions more, and captured him alive so that he could be brought to justice and made to answer for his unspeakable crimes. I can't emphasise this enough:

 

Howard Dean's supporters are crying for Saddam Hussein.

 

Go on. Justify that. Rationalise it. Go dig up one of the mass graves we're still uncovering in the deserts of Iraq, pick up a shattered skull and pour the sand out of it. Look into its eye sockets and tell it you're crying for the animals that left it there.

 

Then vote for the Democrats. And may God have mercy on your soul.

 

But...but...the international community had no real problem with Saddam.

 

Then again, it took them a LONG time to have a problem with Adolf, also.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

To whom it may concern:

 

This is what someone in another thread said about the same post.  Thoughts? 

 

"This article really disappoints me, because Orson Scott Card wrote some of my favorite books ever.

 

But it's idiocy. The idea that during war, blame for deaths automatically goes to the "enemy" is just ridiculous. Do we place no responsibility for Vietnam on the Presidents who made it happen? No. We hold them accountable, because the war was unjust.

Little question: Were the ATROCITIES performed against the S. Vietnamese by the Communists in the North a good thing?

 

People seem to forget what, exactly, happened in that part of the world when we left. S. Vietnam was a killing ground. Cambodia had, by a sheer proportional figure, the most murderous regime in the history of mankind.

If the cause is just - which it is up to EVERY American to decide for themselves - then we can believe in it and accept combatant deaths as a neccessary but unfortunate reality.

 

But when the war is unjust, when the President has hijacked the nation's resources to win power and contracts for his rich buddies, we say "fuck you, this war is fucked."

This is, quite possibly, the most asinine thing I've read on these boards --- and I REMEMBER some REAL winners here.

And we blame the people who lied to us to get us there for LYING TO US TO GET US THERE. We have been shafted, and this article makes it sound like we're just supposed to stand by and support the person who FUCKED us.

Fucked us how? Saddam financially supported terrorism, so he's as bad as a terrorist. He had WMD as he had no problems gassing Kurds in the past. We removed an evil man and it's a shame that you seem so incapable of recognizing evil when it is staring you in the face.

 

Were this the 30's, you'd be bitching that people were giving Hitler a hard time.

And by US, i mean YOU. Because I didn't fall for it.

Aren't you special? And by special, I mean "short-bus" special.

I don't hope that our troops die. I don't hope that we can't rebuild Iraq. I don't hope that Iraq will drive the United States out.

 

but I DO hope that the war will fail - because its goal is none of those things above. Its goals are political and domestic and underhandedly capitalistic, and if Bush succeeds in achieving those goals with a war that goes against everything America thinks it stands for, we'll just be proven a nation of suckers and sheep once again.

No, if we listened to YOUR bilge, we'd be sheep --- and morons.

The fucked up thing is, the reason why no one really cares that we're being lied to is because we all have it too goddamn easy to want to complain. We just as a nation have no sense of responsibility to any other human beings. We're selfish and arrogant and something has got to give. If this is how we're gonna be, I don't want us to be in charge of the world either."

Yeah, WE are the selfish ones. It was US who kept Saddam afloat for years when he was under a U.N embargo. It was US who opposed enforcing U.N resolutions. It was US who had no problem with mass graves and torture.

 

People like you is why the term "liberal" is an insult nowadays.

-=Mike

Edited December 17, 2003 by TheMikeSC

[Guest JMA]

Actually, Rush made a point that is scarily creepy to think about: If it happened TODAY --- would Hitler have the same negative historical connotation he has NOW?

Let's not take what Rush Limbaugh says seriously. He's not really any different than Michael Moore (he's just on the other side).

[tommytomlin 0]

"And during a war, patriotic Americans don't blame the deaths on our government. We blame them on the enemy that persists in trying to kill our soldiers. "

 

 

That's bullshit. If there's ever a time to criticise a government, it's when they're decisions are leading to the deaths of your country's men and women. Being patriotic is supporting your country and what YOU think it stands for, it's not supporting your government or the decisions it makes.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, Rush made a point that is scarily creepy to think about: If it happened TODAY --- would Hitler have the same negative historical connotation he has NOW?

Let's not take what Rush Limbaugh says seriously. He's not really any different than Michael Moore (he's just on the other side).

It is a valid question:

 

Think about it,

 

The int'l community was "disdained" and "protested" Hitler's actions --- but refused to do anything to stop it. Germany provided "no threat" to us as Hitler never made conquering us a huge priority.

 

Honestly, if he were captured today, how would Hitler's legacy be viewed?

-=Mike

...I mean, Saddam has killed a lot of people and the "int'l community" doesn't seem to care

[Justice 0]

Actually, Rush made a point that is scarily creepy to think about: If it happened TODAY --- would Hitler have the same negative historical connotation he has NOW?

Let's not take what Rush Limbaugh says seriously. He's not really any different than Michael Moore (he's just on the other side).

Rush is a bit more factual with his arguments, actually. Now Ann Cloutier or whatever, now you have an argument.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

The one thing I had against the war, and the one thing most of my friends had (be they conservative or WAAAAAY liberal), was the announced reason of "Saddam had WMDs." To the best of my knowledge, we have not found any WMDs in our recent searches of Iraq (and, if we have, I retract this statement).

 

Had the reason been "we're getting Saddam the fuck out of there," I doubt most people would really be so uptight about it. And even the people that DID bitch would deserve a kick in the head, because Saddam IS a fucktard that deserves to be tortured on Pay-Per-View where callers can tell the torturers what they want done to him.

 

I think I read in here that the only reason the "WMD" excuse came up was because of UN backing. If this is true, then I commend the government for finding a solid bullshit reason to take Saddam out.

[Skywarp! 0]

The one thing I had against the war, and the one thing most of my friends had (be they conservative or WAAAAAY liberal), was the announced reason of "Saddam had WMDs." To the best of my knowledge, we have not found any WMDs in our recent searches of Iraq (and, if we have, I retract this statement).

 

Had the reason been "we're getting Saddam the fuck out of there," I doubt most people would really be so uptight about it. And even the people that DID bitch would deserve a kick in the head, because Saddam IS a fucktard that deserves to be tortured on Pay-Per-View where callers can tell the torturers what they want done to him.

 

I think I read in here that the only reason the "WMD" excuse came up was because of UN backing. If this is true, then I commend the government for finding a solid bullshit reason to take Saddam out.

Don't underestimate how far people can dig for excuses. If the official Administration Motive was "This planet has put up with Saddam for too long," the anti-everything squad would have replyed, "oh, that's great. Why now and not 12 years ago? Becuase it's about OIL!"

 

Although I think you're right...the world needed a better reason than "let's take 'em out." Unfortunately, I can't believe he DID have WMDs myself until they find 'em. (And even then, the anti-everything people will claim they were planted.)

[BX 0]

Think about it --- Germany was never an "imminent threat" to us at the time (he never did try to attack us)

 

I thought about it. It's bullshit.

 

Hitler was bound by a promise to Japan to declare war on the US and after the Japanese’s attack on Pearl Harbor December 7th, 1941, he did on December 11th. All restrictions on German U-boats not to attack American shipping were removed. Donitz immediately drew up plans to devastate the US eastern seaboard with swift blows.

 

German U-boats attacked military targets up and down the East Coast.

 

A few German U-boats were responsible for the sinking of a total of 397 ships in the first six months of 1942. There were 171 ships sunk off the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Florida, 62 sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, and 141 in the Caribbean. A total of 2,403 persons were killed and 1,178 were wounded.

 

Sources: http://www.wreckhunter.net/u-boats.htm , http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/uboats.html

http://www.uboat.net/

 

Never an imminant threat, my ass.

[BX 0]

And in case you are wondering how widespread and prevalent the attacks were, here is a map which lists the locations of all U-boats lost in our corner of the world during WWII.

 

[NoCalMike 0]

Actually, Rush made a point that is scarily creepy to think about: If it happened TODAY --- would Hitler have the same negative historical connotation he has NOW?

Let's not take what Rush Limbaugh says seriously. He's not really any different than Michael Moore (he's just on the other side).

It is a valid question:

 

Think about it,

 

The int'l community was "disdained" and "protested" Hitler's actions --- but refused to do anything to stop it. Germany provided "no threat" to us as Hitler never made conquering us a huge priority.

 

Honestly, if he were captured today, how would Hitler's legacy be viewed?

-=Mike

...I mean, Saddam has killed a lot of people and the "int'l community" doesn't seem to care

Saddam could only wish that he amounted to Hitler's pinky toe.

[Vern Gagne 0]

By the way, regarding the idea that the media is biased to wanting to see Bush fail:

 

Still, even Dean acknowledged there was a certain satisfaction in vanquishing such a reviled enemy.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-analysis_x.htm

 

This sounds like one would expect Dean to NOT be happy that Saddam was captured. Like he'd say "Damn! He got captured! I was hoping he got away!"

 

The writing here actually makes Dean sound like a terrorist supporter.

Of course the good doctor never would of gone into Iraq, and the veiled enemy would still be living in his palaces. He took a extreme view reguarding the war, and is naturally going to be raked over the coals by his opponents.

[2GOLD 0]

Comedian Eddie Izzard said it best:

 

"Pol Pot killed one point seven million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged seventy-two, well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that. Hitler killed people next door...oh, stupid man. After a few years, we aren't going to stand for that are we?"

 

That about sums up why Hitler was treated differently.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

More reasons, 2GOLD, why Izzard fucking rules.

 

...cake or death?

[Firestarter 0]

Sexie was crap, though. My wife and I just got it from the UK and it's unbelievably boring. Very little on politics, religion, history, and sociology, just a lot of movie references and a bit of pop culture here and there - none of the brilliance that made Dress to Kill, Glorious, Definite Article, Unrepeatable, and Live at the Ambassador's such superb, almost peerless examples of the art of comedy. I wonder what the hell he was thinking - it's not as if there hasn't been enough going on in the world over the past few years. He should have had truckloads of material, but there wasn't word one about Iraq, the war on terror, Europe, the United States, Islam, or anything else even marginally pertinent to people's lives. It was plodding at best, a good cure for insomnia at worst. Maybe half a dozen jokes that actually made us laugh over something like two hours, and we're tremendous fans of his past work. Disappointing, extremely disappointing. I don't even think he did his James Mason voice, and there was nothing like the genius which made some of his past lines and skits so devastatingly perfect and quotable. Ten years from now, I'll still be saying "Cake or death?" and "God attack the Queen, send big dogs after her," and "Put all the animals with long ears along the shide of the shpeedboat," but I doubt I'll remember even one word from Sexie. Edited December 18, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Marney, I think we may have found a common ground on which to agree:

Izzard fucking rules.

[Firestarter 0]

In almost everything before Sexie, yes. I've just ordered Circle, which I haven't yet seen, but from what I've read about it, it looks much more like his previous work than Sexie.

[Guest SideFXs]

The int'l community was "disdained" and "protested" Hitler's actions --- but refused to do anything to stop it. Germany provided "no threat" to us as Hitler never made conquering us a huge priority.

 

Honestly, if he were captured today, how would Hitler's legacy be viewed?

                      -=Mike

...I mean, Saddam has killed a lot of people and the "int'l community" doesn't seem to care

 

Chamberlain returns from a meeting with the Chancellor of Germany, triumphantly waving the paper with Adolf Hitler's signature. Chamberlain proudly proclaims, "There will be peace in our time!" This was in 1938, from speech given in defense of the Munich Agreement.

 

Now-a-days, its the U.N. and the 'international community'

 

You can't appease a tyrant or a bully.

 

BTW, awesome stuff there Powerplay.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Of course the good doctor never would of gone into Iraq

What? He's said he wouldn't have gone for the reasons the administration decided to.

 

It doesn't mean he'd never go in for any reason and thinks Saddam is a swell guy.

[2GOLD 0]

In almost everything before Sexie, yes. I've just ordered Circle, which I haven't yet seen, but from what I've read about it, it looks much more like his previous work than Sexie.

 

Sexie was a damn nightmare. I have no idea what the hell was up with him.

 

"Dress to Kill" has forever made me a fan of his. The guy is hilarious and surprisingly insightful. As for the wars, I always got the feeling he really didn't give a crap about it or he just didn't want to turn it into jokes yet.

 

I can recite every line from "Dress" in my head, hence the quote I used about Hitler.

[Dr. Tom 0]

In almost everything before Sexie, yes. I've just ordered Circle, which I haven't yet seen, but from what I've read about it, it looks much more like his previous work than Sexie.

Circle DVD Review, by yours truly.

 

THat's the most recent work of his I've seen. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough for Live at the Ambassador's or Sexie -- not that the latter much sounds like it's worth looking for, sadly enough.