53% of Germans consider Dubya more dangerous than Saddam - A [Archive]

Stormin Norman

18th January 2003, 18:57

As to the link betweenIraq and Al Qaeda, here is a link that descibes the presence of Al Qaeda in Bagdad, and Iraqis assistance in helping Al Quida use and deliver chemical weapons.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927...27-60557328.htm (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-60557328.htm)

How about this NY Times report published by the Kurdish Observer that decribes a joint Saddam-al Qaeda venture to kill Kurdish leaders in the north and develop chemical warfare facilities near Iran. It appears that the CIA has quit denying the Czech report that tied Muhamed Atta to Iraqi intelligence.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistanobserver/2...eda-saddam.html (http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistanobserver/24-8-02-ny-times-kurdistan-qaeda-saddam.html)

There should be no surprise that Saddam, in his desperate situation, would team with a terrorist organization to deliver catastrophic blows to his enemy the United States. Furthermore, it should come as no surprise that a 'spiritual' group with the objective of destroying the United States could benefit from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Malte, for a supposed newsman, it appears that you have been living in a communism induced coma. You should steer clear from the bullshit media outlets that you use, and start looking into reputable sources, before you lecture me about ignorance.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 7:41 am on Jan. 19, 2003)

Edelweiss

18th January 2003, 19:16

I'm not denying the rise of anti-semitism in Europe. It's dangerous and has to be fought. BUT you are implenting that everyone who is opposed to the war is an potential fascist. Which is just ridiculous
cheap rhetoric.
The article you linked is just the usual pre-war propaganda lies, just like the stories about babies that have been pulled out their incubators by Iraqis within the first gulf war, and just like the stories about massacres of the Serbs before the Kossovo war.
Lies, lies, lies.

Stormin Norman

18th January 2003, 19:26

I would not say that all anti-war people in Europe are anti-semites, but I would say that the component exists among the anti-American, anti-war movement in that region. It appears the enemies of the United States are not as well defined as they were during the Cold War. Is this the beginning of another World War? I would suggest that diplomatic relations between the United States and Europe haven't been this strained since the previous two world wars. Current developments have all the makings of another global war, and it remains unclear who stands with the United States. Perhaps European nations continue with their reservations in order to get a better idea of who will benefit, and who will be left in disarray before they choose a clear position.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 8:05 am on Jan. 22, 2003)

El Brujo

18th January 2003, 19:48

*sigh*. Never ending stupidity in its purest form.

There is a HUGE difference between anti-semitism and anti-ZIONISM buddy. In fact its really quite the opposite because the israelites are almost as fascistic and racist as the nazis were.

Edelweiss

18th January 2003, 19:51

There is a HUGE difference between anti-semitism and anti-ZIONISM buddy. In fact its really quite the opposite because the israelites are almost as fascistic and racist as the nazis were.

Man, I hate that Nazi-Zionist comparisons, it's not very accurate, you should know better...

Guest

18th January 2003, 19:58

Germans----you mean those "peaceful" people that were responsible for war atrocities, mass murders, concentration camp, over 30 000 000 dead----just 57 years ago. These are passing morality now?

Exploited Class

18th January 2003, 20:24

Quote: from Guest on 7:58 pm on Jan. 18, 2003
Germans----you mean those "peaceful" people that were responsible for war atrocities, mass murders, concentration camp, over 30 000 000 dead----just 57 years ago. These are passing morality now?

At least they learned, what about Americans that just in the last 200 years killed almost every native American? The germans attempted Genocide, Americans accomplished it. How many of the unigque tribes out there no longer exist? How many languages are lost? How much pain and suffering did the manifest destiny bring upon people who weren't european? At least the jewish people were put on trains prior to their death, indians got to create a trail of tears. I'd say that Germans own up to what they did and are disguisted by their past, we just make up excuses.

canikickit

18th January 2003, 20:32

Although I agree with what Exploited Class has said, I disagree with talking sense to bigots, it's a waste of time.

Norm, I am not aware of a rise in anti-Semitism. Perhaps you are talking about the realisation by more people of the reign of terror Sharon has going on. Perhaps not, I just don't think your statement was relevant.

"Once again, the true colors of the Europeans are being displayed. "

As for this shit...I recall you complaining at some stage of how Americans are always generalised by Europeans. Which of course is a contradiction in itself.

As a matter of fact your whole tirade against Europeans was quite ridiculous. Hitler was European was he not?

Cease the bigotry Norm. I know, I know.

(Edited by canikickit at 12:31 am on Jan. 19, 2003)

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

18th January 2003, 21:02

What about anti-muslimism in the US. People get shot, beaten up, arrested for beeing muslim, or looking like a sandnigger or towelhead.

Critism on Israeli's criminal actions isn't anti-semitism.

Are you judging germans on something that their ancestors did?

Must I judge you for something that the US did with the Japanese-American citizens during WW2?

Exploited Class

18th January 2003, 21:56

Stormin is just trying to sidetrack and deflect that fact that most the world is against this war that America is getting ready to wage, and the President behind it. It is easier to bring up some type of flamewar topic into this and take critizism for rather than deal with the real issue. The world fears America more than Saddam.

America right now is the guy that has all his friends do an intervention, but refuses to believe the 30 friends surrounding him telling him that he has a problem. Why because he has his beer drinking pal England to tell him he doesn't in fact have a drinking problem. It is pretty hard to say that all 30 friends are wrong, so Stormin is going to attack them instead of their opinion.

HankMorgan

18th January 2003, 22:20

Let's get to the heart of the matter.

What's more important to the lefties on this site? Is it keeping Saddam Hussein in power or preventing the US from using its military might? Are you pro-Hussein or anti-American?

If you want to keep Hussein in power, you're insane and should seek treatment.

If you would like to see Hussein ousted but don't want blood shed in the process, watch as President Bush makes it happen.

I believe most of you are just looking for something to protest. It's the only thing that squares with a wish to keep Hussein in power. Enjoy your protesting.

Comrade Daniel

18th January 2003, 23:22

HankMorgan you are really one stupid thing.
First of alle (and I think many) more are against Saddam.
But a american war will only cause damage to the Iraqi people and nature. HankMorgan if you haven't got anything senisble to say then fuck off!

canikickit

19th January 2003, 00:39

If you would like to see Hussein ousted but don't want blood shed in the process, watch as President Bush makes it happen.

ho, ho, ho. hee, hee, hee. Please, my sides....can't take it anymore...

Are you pro-Hussein or anti-American?

Hey are they the only two options? Shit man....pass.

I would consider myself neither anti-American nor pro-Hussein. I am against the policy the United States of America has which involves setting up puppet regimes. I'm not a fan of puppetry.

God bless Jesus.

Exploited Class

19th January 2003, 00:43

What's more important to the lefties on this site? Is it keeping Saddam Hussein in power or preventing the US from using its military might? Are you pro-Hussein or anti-American?

So if I don't like or am against radiation treatment of cancer, I am pro-cancer?

Since you cling onto analogies so much, like the 486DX you love to talk about. Say somebody got cancer in 1991, and they used treatment to neutralize it, essentially keeping it from doing any more harm. Then 12 years later a doctor comes in and wants to remove it with radiation, although it has done nothing. The treatment is worse than the illness. I am am opposed to the radiation treatment that the doctor is proposing since it could cause serious side effects. Am I pro-cancer?

You are the same person that uses the term, "Pro-Abortion" for people "Pro-choice." You try to make any disagreement with your side negative by making their stance pro something negative.

Nice strawman debate tactic.

Anonymous

19th January 2003, 01:02

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 6:07 am on Jan. 19, 2003)

Blibblob

19th January 2003, 01:05

Im in an insulting mood right now, i didnt read the entire thread, and now i am going to start assuming some things.

Saddam isnt a problem at all. All Bush wants is the oil. Saddam doesnt have any nukes, but the US has MANY. And then we avoid North Korea, maybe they wont attack us if we pay them, hmm.

Mazdak

19th January 2003, 01:28

Comrade Daniel, you seem to be a rather mindless person from the contents of your posts.

I am pro Hussein, if given those two options. It is that simple. He is the leader of his country. Who are you to choose the leader of Iraq? "Are you Iraqi? No, so leave Saddam alone.

(Please note, my posts are lacking their previous quality because nothing much really goes on in S vs C. Of course, most simply would stop posting completely, but by doing that, i would be letting the Fuhrer Malte and his ministers win. As long as i know that they are attempting to stop me, i feel it is my duty to continue posting. when something comes up that might be worth arguing, i will argue it. Thank you.)

HankMorgan

19th January 2003, 03:38

Yes I do like analogies. Just ask my wife.

Your analogy works perfectly here, exploitedclass.

Was the cancer, Hussein, really neutralized back in 1991? If given the nutrient rich supply of oil money, will that tumor grow to where it's a problem for all? I think I know the answer to that question. I'm truly curious where you all fall on this question.

Mazdak seems sure. Let's see how his man, Hussein, does in the future.

El Brujo

19th January 2003, 04:04

Funny how you would support capitalism (a system in which the bosses leech off of the workers and other corporations they've driven out of musiness) and Bush's drive to steal Iraqui oil after #3 on your sig, Hank Morgan. Kind of SELF-CONTRADICTORY, woudln't we agree?

Capitalist Imperial

19th January 2003, 06:47

[quote]Quote: from guerrillaradio on 1:55 pm on Jan. 18, 2003
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...8%2Fwirq418.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F01%2F18%2Fwirq418. xml)

"82% of French are against any military action
75% of French would support them vetoing war in the UN"

Here is a statistic for you: The United States of America is 100% sure that we don't give a rat's shitty ass what France thinks.

Why would a self-respecting and benevolent superpower like the USA lend any creedence to the frivolous whims of the world's pussiest nation? They didn't even have the balls to stay in NATO, the yellow-ass bastards. They are half-commie anyway. Why don't they just replace their disgraceful flag with a permanent white flag of surrender to reflect their true foreign policy approach? Or they can join Iraq. We would absolutely love the chance to roll over them like a bad fuckin' souffle'. Five minutes, just give us Five minutes against the french, and they would be no more.

"76% of Germans against war"

Fuck Germany. Pinko Schroeder has that place so fucked up that they have forgotten all about who they owe their existence too, both for liberating them from Nazi control, rebuilding them after the war, creating the fall of the berlin wall, and maintaining viable trade relations with them for the last 50 years. What a lack of fucking appreciation. Absolutely no reciprocation whatsoever.

Fucking disgraceful.

"61% of Italians against war"

History shows us that Italy never really knows which side they are on anyway, not that it would matter. Italy is a non-factor politically (sorry don, you are one of the good ones)

"60% of Spaniards against war"

They just don't want be reminded of anything to do with oil at the moment.

"It seems to be just the Axis of English Speakers (minus Canada of course) who want this crusade to go ahead..."

Oh, except Canada, of course Do we care what America Jr. thinks in this instance? NO. They just need to sit to our north, look pretty, and let us conduct business. They don't dictate policy in North America, we do. We've earned that right. They rely on us for viability, not vice versa.

These stats mean nothing

regime change is the only option.

eradication of the hussein dictatorship is imminent

synthesis

19th January 2003, 07:04

Man, what a fucking idiot.

Why do you people waste your time with this bigot? I gave up on him a long time ago.

Capitalist Imperial

19th January 2003, 07:04

Quote: from exploitedclass on 8:24 pm on Jan. 18, 2003

Quote: from Guest on 7:58 pm on Jan. 18, 2003
Germans----you mean those "peaceful" people that were responsible for war atrocities, mass murders, concentration camp, over 30 000 000 dead----just 57 years ago. These are passing morality now?

At least they learned, what about Americans that just in the last 200 years killed almost every native American? The germans attempted Genocide, Americans accomplished it. How many of the unigque tribes out there no longer exist? How many languages are lost? How much pain and suffering did the manifest destiny bring upon people who weren't european? At least the jewish people were put on trains prior to their death, indians got to create a trail of tears. I'd say that Germans own up to what they did and are disguisted by their past, we just make up excuses.

How do you figure, exploitedclass, that we are "making excuses"?

We americans are just as digusted, and shameful of some of our behavior in the past, incuding subjogation of aboriginal americans and the practice of slavery.

Germany still has a very large neo-nazi contingent, and the German government is soft on eradicating it.

America does not currently have indian-killer or slave-owner factions.

If anything, it is Germany that still lacks shame.

"At least the jewish people were put on trains prior to their death"

What a pathetic attempt to assign a "relative degree" of genocide. Don't insult our intelligence, here, exploitedclass. We know better.

Moskitto

19th January 2003, 09:16

Was the cancer, Hussein, really neutralized back in 1991? If given the nutrient rich supply of oil money, will that tumor grow to where it's a problem for all? I think I know the answer to that question. I'm truly curious where you all fall on this question.

hey, my dad uses the same analogy, he says that to destroy a cancer you have to remove the actual tumor, not just the places where the tumor's spread to.

Comrade Daniel

19th January 2003, 10:07

Great spoken Moskitto

to remove the actual tumor, not just the places where the tumor's spread to.

Anonymous

19th January 2003, 10:15

Germany is overly liberal which is leading to protesters against th egovernment turning Nazi. And do you really think America doesnt care what everyone else thinks? You know that taking action against evreyone elses wishes will unite most of the world in distrust of America.

Comrade Daniel

19th January 2003, 10:35

Yeah, in Vietnam all types of people all around the globe protested against mass murder, chemical bombs and so on. And the united states of agression finally moved out of Vietnam. And the liberating force Vietcong made Vietnam Communist.

redstarshining

19th January 2003, 10:56

Quote: from Guest on 8:58 pm on Jan. 18, 2003
Germans----you mean those "peaceful" people that were responsible for war atrocities, mass murders, concentration camp, over 30 000 000 dead----just 57 years ago. These are passing morality now?

This is just a dumb generalization. Like most people who live in Germany, I have been born AFTER the 3rd Reich. HOWEVER, I feel responsible to do everything in my power to make sure this will never ever happen again. But not because I'm german.

I do NOT identify with being german. As unoriginal as it may sound, but I see myself primarily as a world citizen.

How does this make my morality any worse than yours, just because I've had the questionable pleasure of being born in this country? And by the way, I doubt very much that Germany has a higher percentage of Nazis than America. And what about the KKK and the whole white pride shit, the discrimination of women, gay people, blacks, the millions of people that died in US made wars ( Indochina 2 million, Vietnam 2 million, Iraq 1.5 million, the rest of southeast asia 2.5 million and the list goes on and on ). Not to mention the victims of US sweatshops in third world countries, or the drug & human trafficking. If I use your argumentation I could call you a hateful, sexist, racist war monger, just because you're american. But I won't do that, because I don't judge people by their nationality.

Germany has a problem with Nazis and anti semitism, but they are still a minority. If the overwhelming majority of Germans are against war this just means they don't want blood for oil.

Blibblob

19th January 2003, 13:20

Well then, did they ever bother to take a poll in the US, i can assure you, the only Americans that want war, are the Bush feet suckers. We have no grudge like that against afganistan to go to war, just the oil that Bush wants so bad. He has no nukes, and even if he did, why would you give a fuck, almost all countries that arent 3rd world have fucking nukes, i say we take care of North Korea and China first dammit, thats the problem, not some guy on the sidelines.

Hes no tumor, hes not an innocent either, but he hasnt done anything since the Gulf War, and his country is actually doing quite well.

The US is the actual tumor, take out us, and life will better, in at leat the 3rd world, but then you have to take down China, who would be reaching for the top, it doesnt end, war has happened, is happening, and will always happen throughout the entire existance of the human race.

redstarshining

19th January 2003, 14:57

Quote: from Blibblob on 2:20 pm on Jan. 19, 2003
Well then, did they ever bother to take a poll in the US, i can assure you, the only Americans that want war, are the Bush feet suckers. We have no grudge like that against afganistan to go to war, just the oil that Bush wants so bad. He has no nukes, and even if he did, why would you give a fuck, almost all countries that arent 3rd world have fucking nukes, i say we take care of North Korea and China first dammit, thats the problem, not some guy on the sidelines.

Hes no tumor, hes not an innocent either, but he hasnt done anything since the Gulf War, and his country is actually doing quite well.

The US is the actual tumor, take out us, and life will better, in at leat the 3rd world, but then you have to take down China, who would be reaching for the top, it doesnt end, war has happened, is happening, and will always happen throughout the entire existance of the human race.

I know, and I'm glad that not everyone who lives in the US supports the countrie's foreign policy :)

Yesterday on N-TV ( a german news TV-station, ironically a CNN daughter ) they said that it's estimated that about half of the US' population are opposed to a war in Iraq. They didn't give any sources, so I have no idea if this is correct, but if you look at all the protests currently going on over there, it must be a LOT. And I'm sure more people are opposed to it then the media want us to know.

Quote:

>...arent 3rd world have fucking nukes, i say we take >care of North Korea and China first dammit, thats the >problem, not some guy on the sidelines.

I hope I misunderstood this paragraph? You're not suggesting to start a war against North Korea and China?

And about Iraq doing quite well, don't forget what he did to the communists in his country after he came to power in 1979, and what he is ( despite of the no-fly zones ) still doing to Kurdish people and muslim minorities!

The US however, simply wants to exchange Saddam Hussein's regime for a puppet democratic dictatorship, which will then be under the control of US-America until the end of time ( at the expense hundred thousands of civillian lives of course ). That's one of the main reasons why I am against this war. And what happened to national sovereignity, the whole UN is just big hypocratic joke, in my opinion.

Blibblob

19th January 2003, 15:08

"Quote:

>...arent 3rd world have fucking nukes, i say we take >care of North Korea and China first dammit, thats the >problem, not some guy on the sidelines.

I hope I misunderstood this paragraph? You're not suggesting to start a war against North Korea and China?"

What i ment was if there was gonna be a war, make it against countries that could damage the entire human race. Thats our one goal, survival.

redstarshining

19th January 2003, 16:03

Quote: from Blibblob on 4:08 pm on Jan. 19, 2003
"Quote:

>...arent 3rd world have fucking nukes, i say we take >care of North Korea and China first dammit, thats the >problem, not some guy on the sidelines.

I hope I misunderstood this paragraph? You're not suggesting to start a war against North Korea and China?"

What i ment was if there was gonna be a war, make it against countries that could damage the entire human race. Thats our one goal, survival.

I'm not a big fan of the north korean regime ( if the way the DPRK is portrayed in the media somehow reflects reality which I don't know... there is an information barrier, and the media is never to be trusted ) but why do you think North Korea is a bigger threat to the human race than the US or Iraq? Same thing with China, the country is far from being socialist or communist but why do you think it is a greater threat than the other two big empires?

And I hope you consider the consequences this would have... both countries posses strategic nuclear weapons.

EDIT: correction, in the case of north korea it's unproven of course.

(Edited by redstarshining at 5:09 pm on Jan. 19, 2003)

LOIC

19th January 2003, 16:32

capitalist imperial you are an imbecile.

"Five minutes, just give us Five minutes against the french, and they would be no more."

That's the american way: you are too stupid to convince people that what you say (or do) is right, so you use violence to impose your views.

You are a pathetic idiot just like your president and his fucked up government.

El Brujo

19th January 2003, 21:25

And then the yankees wonder why 99.9% of the world hates them. Arrogant yankee-supremacists like CI are the embodyment of that reason. Walk down anywhere in the world (third world or not) spewing your ultra-nationalistic shit and see how fast youl end up in a coffin (not a bad thing either).

(Edited by El Brujo at 5:31 am on Jan. 20, 2003)

mentalbunny

19th January 2003, 21:37

from El Brujo:

There is a HUGE difference between anti-semitism and anti-ZIONISM buddy. In fact its really quite the opposite because the israelites are almost as fascistic and racist as the nazis were.

I have a friend who describes his grandmother as a Nazi Jew.

Obviously most of Europe is against the war, they experienced two world warsa up front, the US had it nice and cushy, apart from the soldiers who fought. Most of the population had it fine, compared to Europe who suffered air raids, masses of rationing etc.

Saddam's hardly harmless but he's less dangerous than Bush, he knows how to keep a low profile and avoid pissing people off, it was Bush who brought him into the limelight and it is Bush who is threatening the lives of soldiers all over the English-speaking world.

guerrillaradio

19th January 2003, 23:04

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 6:47 am on Jan. 19, 2003
[quote]Quote: from guerrillaradio on 1:55 pm on Jan. 18, 2003
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...8%2Fwirq418.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F01%2F18%2Fwirq418. xml)

"82% of French are against any military action
75% of French would support them vetoing war in the UN"

Here is a statistic for you: The United States of America is 100% sure that we don't give a rat's shitty ass what France thinks.

Why would a self-respecting and benevolent superpower like the USA lend any creedence to the frivolous whims of the world's pussiest nation? They didn't even have the balls to stay in NATO, the yellow-ass bastards. They are half-commie anyway. Why don't they just replace their disgraceful flag with a permanent white flag of surrender to reflect their true foreign policy approach? Or they can join Iraq. We would absolutely love the chance to roll over them like a bad fuckin' souffle'. Five minutes, just give us Five minutes against the french, and they would be no more.

"76% of Germans against war"

Fuck Germany. Pinko Schroeder has that place so fucked up that they have forgotten all about who they owe their existence too, both for liberating them from Nazi control, rebuilding them after the war, creating the fall of the berlin wall, and maintaining viable trade relations with them for the last 50 years. What a lack of fucking appreciation. Absolutely no reciprocation whatsoever.

Fucking disgraceful.

"61% of Italians against war"

History shows us that Italy never really knows which side they are on anyway, not that it would matter. Italy is a non-factor politically (sorry don, you are one of the good ones)

"60% of Spaniards against war"

They just don't want be reminded of anything to do with oil at the moment.

"It seems to be just the Axis of English Speakers (minus Canada of course) who want this crusade to go ahead..."

Oh, except Canada, of course Do we care what America Jr. thinks in this instance? NO. They just need to sit to our north, look pretty, and let us conduct business. They don't dictate policy in North America, we do. We've earned that right. They rely on us for viability, not vice versa.

These stats mean nothing

regime change is the only option.

eradication of the hussein dictatorship is imminent

LMAO...is this your darkly *ahem* "humourous" side?? Or are you actually being serious??

I'm quite sad actually. I actually hoped that this topic might bring some constructive debate. Yet nothing any capitalist has said would even qualify as worthy of debating.

HankMorgan

20th January 2003, 02:00

Watch, canikickit. It begins.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75993,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/19/sprj.irq....iraq/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/19/sprj.irq.us.iraq/index.html)

Iepilei

20th January 2003, 18:58

yes, CI. Fuck every nation on earth. Fuck em all.

A few billion people have nothing on us.

[sarcasm]

Capitalist Imperial

20th January 2003, 19:10

Quote: from El Brujo on 9:25 pm on Jan. 19, 2003
And then the yankees wonder why 99.9% of the world hates them. Arrogant yankee-supremacists like CI are the embodyment of that reason. Walk down anywhere in the world (third world or not) spewing your ultra-nationalistic shit and see how fast youl end up in a coffin (not a bad thing either).

(Edited by El Brujo at 5:31 am on Jan. 20, 2003)

Do you think I'm scared? LOL, hardly. Who's gonna take me? No one!

Goldfinger

20th January 2003, 19:13

don't challenge us, mate

Capitalist Imperial

20th January 2003, 19:17

Quote: from Apocalypse When on 7:13 pm on Jan. 20, 2003
don't challenge us, mate

what are you talking about, dude?

Goldfinger

20th January 2003, 19:48

you guess, bro

Capitalist Imperial

20th January 2003, 20:18

Quote: from Apocalypse When on 7:48 pm on Jan. 20, 2003
you guess, bro

Dude, nothing is weaker than some simp who tries to get tough over the internet.

You're a joke.

Goldfinger

20th January 2003, 20:49

you're a piece of poo :P

Stormin Norman

21st January 2003, 20:54

Well then, did they ever bother to take a poll in the US, i can assure you, the only Americans that want war, are the Bush feet suckers.

I am hardly a Bush feet sucker, but I have been beating the war drums prior to 9-11. I wanted action over the Pan-am flight that was shot down in New York Harbor. I wanted action over the multiple embassy bombings overseas. I wanted action for the Oklahoma City bombing. I wanted action for the 1st trade center bombing. I wanted a declaration of war when the USS Cole was hit. I demanded military action, while the general policy was to deal with such enemies in a judicious fashion.

No my friend, I am not a big supporter of Bush. In fact, I am a critic of the weak response toward national security, our borders, and the elimination of our enemies that Bush has shown. No, I don't think things have improved greatly since the Bush administration took over, or since September 11th. I am still waiting for the other the other shoe to drop, as I know it will. I only pray that biological weapons are not the preferred weapon for the next terrorist act.

I understand what damage the Clinton Administration did to this country. I wanted him impeached for taking Chinese campaign contributions and seemingly offering a quid pro quo in the form of dumbed down security, and the loss of U.S. nuclear secrets to the Chinese. I saw the dismantling of the military industrial complex as the biggest mistake America has made in the last 30 years. This was complimented with an general disruption in the ability of our Intelligence services to conduct their business. These pressing issues compiled with other poor policy decisions, like using the judicial process to fight clear acts of war, have landed the U.S. in the precarious position that it finds itself today.

Even though I remain critical of Bush and did not vote for the man, I find it rather assurring that we now have a commander of chief that exhibits a certain level of ethics and principle. Will it take years to repair the damage caused by mistaking American politics with tabloid T.V.? Yes. Do we need more aggressive measures to expedite the ability to prosecute the wars needed to nuetralize our shared enemies? Yes. Will Bush do what is necessary to engage the laundry list of problems I have listed above? I don't know, but I remain both critical and hopeful in the strength of a leader that all American's should generally support, since we are engaged in a very dangerous unofficial war against a faceless enemy.

Now tell me again how I am brianwashed, while you refer to the talking points provided to you by any number of liberal rags that oppose the war. You attack my position on a war with Iraq, by demonstrating your incredulous ignorance to the facts of the matter. You sir, are what Stalin would have called a useful idiot. I only hope that when the next shoe drops, the terrorist organizations target peacenicks like you specifically, as to demonstrate that they do not discriminate against who they chose to kill. A dead American is a dead American no matter how stupid they may be. Marching in favor of Palestinian rights does not grant you sympathy in the minds of al Qaeda. The maximum number of dead Americans in the most horrific and terrifying manner imaginable in the objective of our enemy. After September 11, I would expect even a moron like yourself to understand this point. I fear that it will take another demonstration of human suffering to wake up those who remain oppossed to fighting a much needed war.

guerrillaradio

21st January 2003, 23:19

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 8:54 pm on Jan. 21, 2003
I wanted action for the Oklahoma City bombing.

LOL...you wanted military action to take out one Caucausian who lived locally?? That demonstrates the danger of trigger-happy people...

antieverything

21st January 2003, 23:40

This is now, officially, the worst discussion...ever.

I refuse to post on this thread...wait a second...

damn.

Stormin Norman

22nd January 2003, 11:20

LOL...you wanted military action to take out one Caucausian who lived locally?? That demonstrates the danger of trigger-happy people...

If by military action, you mean hunting down those who were responsible and killing them, then yes. Did Nichols and McViegh act alone? I don't think so. In fact, recent information from the Manilla Times, a mainstream Philippene newspaper, has shown a connection between Nichols, Abu Sayyaf, and al Qaeda.

http://www.indystar.com/library/topics/opi.../2002_0223.html (http://www.indystar.com/library/topics/opinion/patterson/columns/2002_0223.html)

Even the Wall Street Journal is checking into the matter. The Journal does quite a bit of fact checking even for the claims made in an editorial.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002217

The House Government Reform Committee is looking into the matter:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...10/213551.shtml (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/10/213551.shtml)

It appears that militia types can potentially be recruited to carry out terror operations within the United States. Since most of them are white, that makes them excellent candidates for recruitment, or outside funding. The danger is more malignant than a couple of gun-buffs who "lived locally".

mentalbunny

22nd January 2003, 14:55

Lol, this thread is a joke, from now on I refuse to reply to any of CI's posts as he is only capable of speaking complete bullsh*t.

Isn't it obvious that the world does not want to go to war?

Felicia

22nd January 2003, 15:09

In a poll done here in Canada. In choosing who canadians thought was a greater threat to world peace, and given the options of george buch, al quada, and saddam, and I think osama was in there too. The majority of Canadians (36%) chose Bush.

Capitalist Imperial

22nd January 2003, 15:19

Quote: from felicia on 3:09 pm on Jan. 22, 2003
In a poll done here in Canada. In choosing who canadians thought was a greater threat to world peace, and given the options of george buch, al quada, and saddam, and I think osama was in there too. The majority of Canadians (36%) chose Bush.

With ignorant answers like that, it is little wonder that canada never made much of itself

Guardia Bolivariano

22nd January 2003, 15:38

And in an other poll from Che-lives the majority 67% thinks Capitalist Imperial is full of shit,20% thinks he's a big sissy and 13% think he should change his name to Imperial Wuss.

Te sigo esperando won aunque seas un pobre Verano y Sifrino te voy a complacer con la coñaza de tu vida.Asi que ajustate esa pantaleta piaso de Pela-bola.;)

guerrillaradio

22nd January 2003, 22:14

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 3:19 pm on Jan. 22, 2003

Quote: from felicia on 3:09 pm on Jan. 22, 2003
In a poll done here in Canada. In choosing who canadians thought was a greater threat to world peace, and given the options of george buch, al quada, and saddam, and I think osama was in there too. The majority of Canadians (36%) chose Bush.

With ignorant answers like that, it is little wonder that canada never made much of itself

And with ignorant answers like that, it's no wonder noone takes you seriously...

Stormin Norman

22nd January 2003, 22:18

I still take you seriously, CI. Don't mind these yellow-belly cowards.

Guardia Bolivariano

22nd January 2003, 22:25

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 10:18 pm on Jan. 22, 2003
I still take you seriously, CI. Don't mind these yellow-belly cowards.

Yes CI listen to your boyfriend he still loves you.

Capitalist Imperial

22nd January 2003, 22:36

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 10:18 pm on Jan. 22, 2003
I still take you seriously, CI. Don't mind these yellow-belly cowards.

Thanks, SN, I know I can always count on your alliance to help bring the truth to these dolts.

Not that they'll ever listen.

I've been under heavy fire as of late, in case you haven't noticed.

I appreciate your unwavering support.

Capitalist Imperial

22nd January 2003, 22:39

Quote: from Guardia Bolivariano on 3:38 pm on Jan. 22, 2003
And in an other poll from Che-lives the majority 67% thinks Capitalist Imperial is full of shit,20% thinks he's a big sissy and 13% think he should change his name to Imperial Wuss.

Te sigo esperando won aunque seas un pobre Verano y Sifrino te voy a complacer con la coñaza de tu vida.Asi que ajustate esa pantaleta piaso de Pela-bola.;)

Your support of Chavez negates even an iota of legitimacy on your part.

I can only hope that you are included in the collateral damage when we shell your nation.

Guardia Bolivariano

22nd January 2003, 22:43

Should I be scared?:) To much rambo for you shitface.

Blibblob

22nd January 2003, 22:45

HOLY SHIT!!, even more shit comes from CI's mouth. CAN IT NEVER END!!

CI, you live in the US, please tell me your address so i can personally come beat the shit out of your naive ignorant Bush feet sucking little ass.

Let me guess, you are either a brainwashed elementery school kid, or are in your 30s and were brainwashed a long time ago. It seems the High School and College students now are the least ignorant and naive, we can actually come up with some counters to you careless posts, what the hell do you have?

Capitalist Imperial

22nd January 2003, 22:55

Quote: from Blibblob on 10:45 pm on Jan. 22, 2003
HOLY SHIT!!, even more shit comes from CI's mouth. CAN IT NEVER END!!

CI, you live in the US, please tell me your address so i can personally come beat the shit out of your naive ignorant Bush feet sucking little ass.

Let me guess, you are either a brainwashed elementery school kid, or are in your 30s and were brainwashed a long time ago. It seems the High School and College students now are the least ignorant and naive, we can actually come up with some counters to you careless posts, what the hell do you have?

Chances are I'd drop you like an old shoe.

My counters are as legitimate as the posts that they respond to.

Guardia Bolivariano

22nd January 2003, 23:04

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 10:55 pm on Jan. 22, 2003

Quote: from Blibblob on 10:45 pm on Jan. 22, 2003
HOLY SHIT!!, even more shit comes from CI's mouth. CAN IT NEVER END!!

CI, you live in the US, please tell me your address so i can personally come beat the shit out of your naive ignorant Bush feet sucking little ass.

Let me guess, you are either a brainwashed elementery school kid, or are in your 30s and were brainwashed a long time ago. It seems the High School and College students now are the least ignorant and naive, we can actually come up with some counters to you careless posts, what the hell do you have?

Chances are I'd drop you like an old shoe.

My counters are as legitimate as the posts that they respond to.

How the fuck can you be so ignorant and talk about legitimacy If Bush stole the election and Chavez has won Five.Each time you post you kill yourself with the amount of bullshit only an idiot like you can believe.But still I'll keep waiting for your carrier;) .

And If you fight well try to fight in the best case chances are you'll end up in a coma.

Blibblob

22nd January 2003, 23:08

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 5:55 pm on Jan. 22, 2003

Quote: from Blibblob on 10:45 pm on Jan. 22, 2003
HOLY SHIT!!, even more shit comes from CI's mouth. CAN IT NEVER END!!

CI, you live in the US, please tell me your address so i can personally come beat the shit out of your naive ignorant Bush feet sucking little ass.

Let me guess, you are either a brainwashed elementery school kid, or are in your 30s and were brainwashed a long time ago. It seems the High School and College students now are the least ignorant and naive, we can actually come up with some counters to you careless posts, what the hell do you have?

Chances are I'd drop you like an old shoe.

My counters are as legitimate as the posts that they respond to.

[/quote]

I live in the US, so why dont i fight like the US. Who said id fight fair, ill outnumber you, and outgun you. You wont live the first second. Your house would be a pile of rubble first.

Hey, its the American way, bomb first, ask questions later.

Capitalist Imperial

23rd January 2003, 00:25

]

I live in the US, so why dont i fight like the US. Who said id fight fair, ill outnumber you, and outgun you. You wont live the first second. Your house would be a pile of rubble first.

Hey, its the American way, bomb first, ask questions later.

In actuality, in most American wars we were the underdog.

The revolution

1812

the spanish/american war (more even)

WWI

WWII

in desert storm, the iraqi forces were 4 times the size of ours

during the cold war, the soviets had #'s on us in many areas

Guardia Bolivariano

23rd January 2003, 03:35

RedComrade

23rd January 2003, 03:51

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:25 am on Jan. 23, 2003

]

I live in the US, so why dont i fight like the US. Who said id fight fair, ill outnumber you, and outgun you. You wont live the first second. Your house would be a pile of rubble first.

Hey, its the American way, bomb first, ask questions later.

"In actuality, in most American wars we were the underdog.

The revolution

1812

the spanish/american war (more even)

WWI

WWII

in desert storm, the iraqi forces were 4 times the size of ours

during the cold war, the soviets had #'s on us in many areas
"

You are so full of shit CI i dont know why i bother posting. During the Cold War the soviets military budget at its highest (back in 1953) was 1/4th of the us's. We had the soviets outgunned, out paid, and out teched. Oh my you try and paint us as the underdogs in the gulf... You truly are STUPID the fact that we had the most advanced military in the world with the greatest economic powerhouse backing it didnt nothing to make up for the masses of vicious iraqi savages who clearly had us in the underdog spot. Only after a valiant fight from mile high bombers and 100 mile off cruise missiles did we beat back the merciless towel head savages.. You are so unbeleivably fucking stupid!

(Edited by RedComrade at 4:20 am on Jan. 23, 2003)

Jaha

23rd January 2003, 04:46

CI, lets review a little U$ history. And please, this is elementry school level, so don't respond with foolish ideas...

Anyways, lets take a look--

The revolution: okay, here we were underdogs, I'll give you this one.

1812: Did you think the british really had the upper hand? they withdrew without taking any reasonable amount of land

the spanish/american war: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! THE SPANISH WEREN'T EVEN ATTACKING US!! DUMBASS!! WE SIMPLY SUPPORTED THE REVOLUTION!

WWI: ATLANTIC OCEAN GUARANTEED LITTLE THREAT TO U$ PROPER

WWII: SEE: WWI

desert storm: WE HAD NUKES BY THIS POINT, YOU FUCKING MORON. ALSO, THE OPPOSITION HARDLY FOUGHT BACK!!

cold war: DID YOU EVER HEAR THAT WE ALWAYS WERE AHEAD IN THE ARMS RACE? OR THAT FEAR PREVENTED ANY POSSIBLE WARFARE???

YOU SHOULD NOT SAY THINGS THAT ARE FLAT-OUT WRONG.

GET EDJUMACATED BEFORE YOU SPEAK. UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOU LIKE SOUNDING LIKE A DIPSTICK!!

>
=>
==>
===>
====>
=====> i hate stupid people....

Fjoodor

23rd January 2003, 07:50

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 6:47 pm on Jan. 18, 2003
Do both of you deny the rise of anti-semitism in Europe? Anti-semetism is a movement that has been gaining momentum in Europe during recent times. To ignore it is not only stupid, it is dangerous.

Not only the Anti-Semetism has been gaining strenght in Europe...
The Anti-Facist movements are groving...

I don't think it's better in The us....

Felicia

23rd January 2003, 15:30

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 11:19 am on Jan. 22, 2003

Quote: from felicia on 3:09 pm on Jan. 22, 2003
In a poll done here in Canada. In choosing who canadians thought was a greater threat to world peace, and given the options of george buch, al quada, and saddam, and I think osama was in there too. The majority of Canadians (36%) chose Bush.

With ignorant answers like that, it is little wonder that canada never made much of itself

HAHAHA, oh, please stop before I burst something! You're one to talk about an ignorant answer! But maybe you're just tense and stressed out. The way I figure it, you're either single, divorced, or so old that even a prostitute wouldn't fuck you. It's a shame really, I guess that stick up your ass gets in the way of the prostitute's dick. :(

Capitalist Imperial

23rd January 2003, 18:01

Quote: from Guardia Bolivariano on 3:35 am on Jan. 23, 2003

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:25 am on Jan. 23, 2003

]

I live in the US, so why dont i fight like the US. Who said id fight fair, ill outnumber you, and outgun you. You wont live the first second. Your house would be a pile of rubble first.

Hey, its the American way, bomb first, ask questions later.

In actuality, in most American wars we were the underdog.

The revolution

1812

the spanish/american war (more even)

WWI

WWII

in desert storm, the iraqi forces were 4 times the size of ours

during the cold war, the soviets had #'s on us in many areas

Now so much ignorance just makes me feel sorry for you CI.They really should burn the placed you studied It's ruining the minds of children.

By the way I'm still waiting for that carrier:smile:
I guess we won't be able to test our exocets any time soon.:biggrin:

OK, don't just blindly cry that I am ignorant, tell me how I'm ignorant. Because I can tell you that we were in fact underdogs in all of those wars.

By claiming I am wrong you merely expose your own already obvious ignorance.

BTW, your exocet launchers will have already been destroyed by preliminary air-strikes and tomahawks. Any that happen to survive would be stopped by sea-sparrow missles and close-in weapons system.

Exocets are sorry missles anyway, the harpoon is a much better anti-ship missle.

Capitalist Imperial

23rd January 2003, 18:18

Quote: from RedComrade on 3:51 am on Jan. 23, 2003
[quote]Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:25 am on Jan. 23, 2003
[quote]]

You are so full of shit CI i dont know why i bother posting. During the Cold War the soviets military budget at its highest (back in 1953) was 1/4th of the us's. We had the soviets outgunned, out paid, and out teched. Oh my you try and paint us as the underdogs in the gulf... You truly are STUPID the fact that we had the most advanced military in the world with the greatest economic powerhouse backing it didnt nothing to make up for the masses of vicious iraqi savages who clearly had us in the underdog spot. Only after a valiant fight from mile high bombers and 100 mile off cruise missiles did we beat back the merciless towel head savages.. You are so unbeleivably fucking stupid!

(Edited by RedComrade at 4:20 am on Jan. 23, 2003)

Now your utter stupidity is truly exposed.

You are comparing the soviet military budget to the USA's, that is a moot point. Proportionately to their own economy, they spent much more on their military forces as a % of total economy than the US. Warsaw had more standing troops and land forces than NATO by far. NATO analysts themselves conceded that upon a conventional engagement, the Soviets could take the whole of europe in a matter of days. We had an advantage in nukes and navy. Our airforce was more advanced, but theirs had more planes. However, in an attack scenario, they had a geographic advantage that cannot be underscored enough! Our isolated position was an advantage merely for North America itself in defense, but Europe itself was easily outmanned and outgunned. We were hardly in a superior position. Honestly, RC, your analytical ability leaves much to be desired.

"Only after a valiant fight from mile high bombers and 100 mile off cruise missiles did we beat back the merciless towel head savages"

This is classic idiotic liberal logic. This statement suggests that just because we have the ability to engage enemy forces at stand-off ranges, we should not use it, and risk our own lives in close-in fighting just for the heck of it. Absolutely incredible stupidity.

BTW, jerk, we also attacked on the ground against a dug in Iraqi ground force that not only outnumbered ours, but had 10 years of battle experience. Of course we had technology on our side, but please don''t take away from the highly capable PEOPLE that made victory in the gulf happen.

The bottom line, einstein, is that the Iraqis invaded kuwait. We wanted them out of kuwait, and Kuwait wanted our help. We gave them plenty of time to solve the problem diplomatically. They chose to face us instead. It was their choice, 100%.

RC, you are steadily proving to be among the most simple minded, idiotic, uncomprehensibly stupid individuals I've ever had the displeasure of discussing anything with. You have no analytical ability, and reading comprehension skills, and your arguements are dogmatic and blanketed. Big on insults, small on substance.

Capitalist Imperial

23rd January 2003, 18:52

[quote]Quote: from Jaha on 4:46 am on Jan. 23, 2003
CI, lets review a little U$ history. And please, this is elementry school level, so don't respond with foolish ideas...

"Anyways, lets take a look--"

OK

"The revolution: okay, here we were underdogs, I'll give you this one."

Gee, thanks

"1812: Did you think the british really had the upper hand? they withdrew without taking any reasonable amount of land"

The fact that they withdrew had nothing to do with whether they had the upper hand. You have very little comprehension skills. It is a fact that the British Navy was larger, and more well equipped than the US navy at that point. The fact that they withdrew is merely testament to American capability.

"the spanish/american war: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! THE SPANISH WEREN'T EVEN ATTACKING US!! DUMBASS!! WE SIMPLY SUPPORTED THE REVOLUTION!"

HOW IS IT THAT WE COULD TAKE HAWAII AND THE WHOLE OF THE PHILLIPENES IF WE WERE NOT ATTACKING? YOU ARE HONESTLY AN IMBECILE! WE DIDN'T HAVE TO ATTACK SPAIN ITSELF TO BE ATTACKING IN THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR, YOU DOPE! HONESTLY, IT IS YOU WHAO LACKS KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY, THATS OBVIOUS!!! THEO ROOSEVELT AND HIS ROUGH-RIDERS ARE KNOWN AS ONE OF THE MOST TOUGH AND AGGRESSIVE FIGHTING FORCES OF ALL TIME!!!

"WWI: ATLANTIC OCEAN GUARANTEED LITTLE THREAT TO U$ PROPER"

Again, lets analyze a little bit (not that you can). US proper has nothing to do with whether our forces in the theatre are outmanned and outgunned. As a matter of fact, it is even more of a disadvantage logistically for us to have to ship weapons; soldiers, and equipment over an entire ocean, then establish bases there, than it would be to just build and maintain them in the regions where the battles are occuring at existing bases. You merely help my arguement.

"WWII: SEE: WWI"

Right back at you, same concept

"desert storm: WE HAD NUKES BY THIS POINT, YOU FUCKING MORON. ALSO, THE OPPOSITION HARDLY FOUGHT BACK!!"

Nukes are a moot point, idiot, we engaged them conventionally. The opposition fought very hard, only surrendering after they saw the futility of theri efforts. Those who surrendered were moslty conscripts. The proven Iraqi republican guard fought viciously, and just got beat, though they outnumbered us 4 to 1.

"cold war: DID YOU EVER HEAR THAT WE ALWAYS WERE AHEAD IN THE ARMS RACE? OR THAT FEAR PREVENTED ANY POSSIBLE WARFARE???"

This means nothing. We had the ability to destroy the world 10 x over, they could do it 5 x over, so it didn't matter either way. As far as conventional land forces, we were vastly outnumbered. And in the stuggle for europe, we were at a disadvantage geographically.

"YOU SHOULD NOT SAY THINGS THAT ARE FLAT-OUT WRONG."

As just evidenced, I don't. You do.

"GET EDJUMACATED BEFORE YOU SPEAK. UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOU LIKE SOUNDING LIKE A DIPSTICK!!"

I leave that honor to you commie pukes.

>
=>
==>
===>
====>
=====> "i hate stupid people...."

Self loathing must be torture.

Capitalist Imperial

23rd January 2003, 19:11

Quote: from felicia on 3:30 pm on Jan. 23, 2003

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 11:19 am on Jan. 22, 2003

Quote: from felicia on 3:09 pm on Jan. 22, 2003
In a poll done here in Canada. In choosing who canadians thought was a greater threat to world peace, and given the options of george buch, al quada, and saddam, and I think osama was in there too. The majority of Canadians (36%) chose Bush.

With ignorant answers like that, it is little wonder that canada never made much of itself

HAHAHA, oh, please stop before I burst something! You're one to talk about an ignorant answer! But maybe you're just tense and stressed out. The way I figure it, you're either single, divorced, or so old that even a prostitute wouldn't fuck you. It's a shame really, I guess that stick up your ass gets in the way of the prostitute's dick. :(

LOL, you are pathetic.

Not only are you way off base, but your amature attempt at freudian analysis is cliche and transparent, let alone stupid. You are a farm league intellectual (intellectual doesn't even apply, really) with little substance. Your posts have always been dogmatic and of little value, and this post is a perfect example.

Don't bother responding, I usually don't read your frivolous rantings.

Next time you do post, though, I would put a little more substance in the mix and lighten the meaningless insults.

mentalbunny

23rd January 2003, 21:55

Join me in boycotting all threads in which CI has made idiotic remarks.

(Edited by mentalbunny at 9:58 pm on Jan. 23, 2003)

Anonymous

23rd January 2003, 22:03

*crickets*

Blibblob

23rd January 2003, 22:07

YAY, BOYCOTT!!!!!!

Anonymous

23rd January 2003, 22:49

Excellent argument.

Felicia

23rd January 2003, 23:08

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 3:11 pm on Jan. 23, 2003
[quote]
LOL, you are pathetic.

Not only are you way off base, but your amature attempt at freudian analysis is cliche and transparent, let alone stupid. You are a farm league intellectual (intellectual doesn't even apply, really) with little substance. Your posts have always been dogmatic and of little value, and this post is a perfect example.

Don't bother responding, I usually don't read your frivolous rantings.

Next time you do post, though, I would put a little more substance in the mix and lighten the meaningless insults.

Amature attempt at freudian analysis? Only you would come to that kind of a conclusion when I was just running my mouth. Obviously you're trying to compensate for something you're lacking..... and how could it be "cliche and transparent, let alone stupid" when I'm not trying to analyze you in the first place (again, I said this above) I wouldn't waste the time and effort it would take to get into your "intelligent and beyond genius" mind [/sarcasm] to write any kind proper "analysis" if it were.

"Next time you do post, though, I would put a little more substance in the mix and lighten the meaningless insults"
thankyou, I'll except that as a compliment :)

p.s, I know this isn't the real you, it's just that time of the month ;) It's ok hun, it'll pass, just stick with the hot water bottles.

Guest

23rd January 2003, 23:10

Quote: from El Brujo on 7:48 pm on Jan. 18, 2003
There is a HUGE difference between anti-semitism and anti-ZIONISM buddy. In fact its really quite the opposite because the israelites are almost as fascistic and racist as the nazis were.

I viewed Stormfront today and one of the Nazis said "In fact, I believe we can learn from Israel. It follows its own agenda, doesn't really care about world condemnation, and won't let itseld be bullied or pushed around by left-wing crackpots."

PaulDavidHewson

24th January 2003, 13:20

The Canadians spoke out against a war with Iraque btw, unless the UN gives the green light.
(this in reply to the first post on this thread)

Edelweiss

24th January 2003, 16:15

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 6:47 am on Jan. 19, 2003

Fuck Germany. Pinko Schroeder has that place so fucked up that they have forgotten all about who they owe their existence too, both for liberating them from Nazi control, rebuilding them after the war, creating the fall of the berlin wall, and maintaining viable trade relations with them for the last 50 years. What a lack of fucking appreciation. Absolutely no reciprocation whatsoever.

Fucking disgraceful.

Well, fuck YOU, arrogant asshole! I don't know if you are aware of this, but Germany is a sovereign state, not your colony, and Germany is not owing you to join every imperialist war the US governments may start in the future.
Further you said, said the USA is responsible for the fall of the Berlin wall, what a joke! Another proof of your arrogance. Maybe the US has it's small part with agreeing to a unified Germany in the end , but the main part have the East-German people and the politics of Gorbatshew.

Capitalist Imperial

24th January 2003, 18:28

Oh, come on, Malte!

The Berlin wall was merely a cold-war symbol, a war which was anchored between the USA and USSR, and Gorbacev's politics were merely approaching a reflection of American ideologies!!!

Arkham

24th January 2003, 18:51

Best quote ever, from the Daily Show, last night :

"So let me see if I've got this right, to get a barometer of where we are right now. Ted Kennedy is the voice of reason, and Germany DOESN'T want to go to war..."

Commence with goggle-eyed shaking of head.

Edelweiss

24th January 2003, 18:59

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 6:28 pm on Jan. 24, 2003
Oh, come on, Malte!

The Berlin wall was merely a cold-war symbol, a war which was anchored between the USA and USSR, and Gorbacev's politics were merely approaching a reflection of American ideologies!!!

Really, only you could twist the truth in such a absurd way. You still have to proof how the Us was "creating" the fall of the Berlin wall.

Edelweiss

24th January 2003, 19:02

Quote: from Arkham on 6:51 pm on Jan. 24, 2003
Best quote ever, from the Daily Show, last night :

"So let me see if I've got this right, to get a barometer of where we are right now. Ted Kennedy is the voice of reason, and Germany DOESN'T want to go to war..."

LOL!

Capitalist Imperial

24th January 2003, 20:39

Quote: from Malte on 6:59 pm on Jan. 24, 2003

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 6:28 pm on Jan. 24, 2003
Oh, come on, Malte!

The Berlin wall was merely a cold-war symbol, a war which was anchored between the USA and USSR, and Gorbacev's politics were merely approaching a reflection of American ideologies!!!

Really, only you could twist the truth in such a absurd way. You still have to proof how the Us was "creating" the fall of the Berlin wall.

Because the fall of the Soviet Union was in a large part the result of the loss of the economic and ideological war it waged with the USA for 50 years. So, as the Berlin wall was an extension of communist politics, the subsequent fall of the USSR lead to the fall of the Berlin wall.

Edelweiss

24th January 2003, 23:10

Even if i would follow your logic, it's still wrong to say that the USA "created" the fall of the Berlin wall, the USA only had a very passive role, as I already said, the active role had the east-German people and Gorbacev'. And CI, if the people would have known how capittalism really is, as they have painfully realized now (18% are unemployed!), the fall of the Berlin wall would have never happened.

Capitalist Imperial

24th January 2003, 23:32

Come on, Malte.

Even if the causation between the fall of the wall and America's role in the cold war is indirect, you can't really believe that maintaining a crumbling totalitarian state would be better?

The re-unified Germany is among the world's strongest economies, and employment is down everywhere!

Re-unification and capitalism are good for Germany.

James

24th January 2003, 23:59

erm, i thought their economy was failing now?

I thought that they were "politically instable"

I thought they were "old europe" as your monkey of a president, or one of his play pals, said...

Edelweiss

25th January 2003, 00:04

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 11:32 pm on Jan. 24, 2003
Come on, Malte.

Even if the causation between the fall of the wall and America's role in the cold war is indirect, you can't really believe that maintaining a crumbling totalitarian state would be better?

The re-unified Germany is among the world's strongest economies, and employment is down everywhere!

Re-unification and capitalism are good for Germany.

I'm not a big supporter of the former DDR, what I was trying to say was that the US maybe has won the cold war economicly, but not really ideologically. Many east-Germans are very disillusioned about how live in capitalism really is, and many of them are wishing the times back were they didn't have to worry about their job and their social safety.

Capitalist Imperial

25th January 2003, 00:23

Quote: from Malte on 12:04 am on Jan. 25, 2003

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 11:32 pm on Jan. 24, 2003
Come on, Malte.

Even if the causation between the fall of the wall and America's role in the cold war is indirect, you can't really believe that maintaining a crumbling totalitarian state would be better?

The re-unified Germany is among the world's strongest economies, and employment is down everywhere!

Re-unification and capitalism are good for Germany.

I'm not a big supporter of the former DDR, what I was trying to say was that the US maybe has won the cold war economicly, but not really ideologically. Many east-Germans are very disillusioned about how live in capitalism really is, and many of them are wishing the times back were they didn't have to worry about their job and their social safety.

But I'm sure that many east germans are prosperous and happy with the opportunity before them. The transformation to viable capitalism has only been occuring for about 10 years. It will take a little more time.

Edelweiss

25th January 2003, 01:07

But I'm sure that many east germans are prosperous and happy with the opportunity before them. The transformation to viable capitalism has only been occuring for about 10 years. It will take a little more time.

If you would know the economical data about east-Germany you wouldn't say that. There was not much progress in 10 years. Helmut Kohl, our former chacellor, promised "blooming landsapes within ten years" just ten years ago, the east-Germans are sick of such promises, and they shurely are not "prosperous and happy with the opportunity before them" any more.
Capitalism is in a fundamental crisis, and the people will find back to socialist ideas instead. South-America was the beginning, the rest of the worlds will follow soon.

Guest

25th January 2003, 03:20

as an english speaker i resent the implication that we all want war this is tosh revolution on the other hand is a desirable event sausage.uk

Exploited Class

25th January 2003, 03:56

Quote: from Malte on 12:04 am on Jan. 25, 2003
[quote]I'm not a big supporter of the former DDR, what I was trying to say was that the US maybe has won the cold war economicly, but not really ideologically. Many east-Germans are very disillusioned about how live in capitalism really is, and many of them are wishing the times back were they didn't have to worry about their job and their social safety.

Now that they are unified with W. Germany aren't they recieving any of the social benefits of W. Germany? I mean Germany has shorter work weeks than the US, a lot more vacation time and also an 13 month of pay. From I understand also the Unions there are also fighting for shorter work weeks so more unemployed people can get jobs?

I thought Germany was doing really well, are laws different for E. Germany or something. I am confused, it almost sounds like they are treated differently, and close to how some states in the United States get better benefits that others. Maybe I am a bit disalussioned on Germany's success because it is 2nd hand information.

Edelweiss

25th January 2003, 17:54

Quote: from exploitedclass on 3:56 am on Jan. 25, 2003

Quote: from Malte on 12:04 am on Jan. 25, 2003
[quote]I'm not a big supporter of the former DDR, what I was trying to say was that the US maybe has won the cold war economicly, but not really ideologically. Many east-Germans are very disillusioned about how live in capitalism really is, and many of them are wishing the times back were they didn't have to worry about their job and their social safety.

Now that they are unified with W. Germany aren't they recieving any of the social benefits of W. Germany? I mean Germany has shorter work weeks than the US, a lot more vacation time and also an 13 month of pay. From I understand also the Unions there are also fighting for shorter work weeks so more unemployed people can get jobs?

I thought Germany was doing really well, are laws different for E. Germany or something. I am confused, it almost sounds like they are treated differently, and close to how some states in the United States get better benefits that others. Maybe I am a bit disalussioned on Germany's success because it is 2nd hand information.

You are right, the German state provides a large amount of social benefits, although they are more and more reduced due to the neo-liberal globalisation. And expect that the loans are still lower in east-Germany, it isn't treated differently. But as I already said, 18% are unemployed, in some areas it's nearly 50%. The situation is very hopeless, it doesn't seem that the siutuaton gets any better soon. In the DDR everyone had a job, and noone had to worry about it. Many east-Germans had a very distorted idea of capitalism, and where blinded by the unlimited choice of consumer items which the capitalist west provided. They didn't exepected the dog-eat-dog mentality of capitalism, and couldn't deal with it.

Capitalist Imperial

25th January 2003, 18:10

Quote: from Malte on 1:07 am on Jan. 25, 2003

But I'm sure that many east germans are prosperous and happy with the opportunity before them. The transformation to viable capitalism has only been occuring for about 10 years. It will take a little more time.

If you would know the economical data about east-Germany you wouldn't say that. There was not much progress in 10 years. Helmut Kohl, our former chacellor, promised "blooming landsapes within ten years" just ten years ago, the east-Germans are sick of such promises, and they shurely are not "prosperous and happy with the opportunity before them" any more.
Capitalism is in a fundamental crisis, and the people will find back to socialist ideas instead. South-America was the beginning, the rest of the worlds will follow soon.

I'm sorry, Malte, but America will never follow.

Invader Zim

25th January 2003, 18:31

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 6:10 pm on Jan. 25, 2003

Quote: from Malte on 1:07 am on Jan. 25, 2003

But I'm sure that many east germans are prosperous and happy with the opportunity before them. The transformation to viable capitalism has only been occuring for about 10 years. It will take a little more time.

If you would know the economical data about east-Germany you wouldn't say that. There was not much progress in 10 years. Helmut Kohl, our former chacellor, promised "blooming landsapes within ten years" just ten years ago, the east-Germans are sick of such promises, and they shurely are not "prosperous and happy with the opportunity before them" any more.
Capitalism is in a fundamental crisis, and the people will find back to socialist ideas instead. South-America was the beginning, the rest of the worlds will follow soon.

I'm sorry, Malte, but America will never follow.

I dont know about that, many of the poorest people in the USA would probebly disagree with you, but as i dont live in the USA i cant really talk about that.

I doubt that the UK will change most people have a few problems with the NHS but no-one really hates the system.

Capitalist Imperial

25th January 2003, 18:41

That's how the USA is. The poor people here still do not want socialist reforms on the scale proposed by individuals on this site. They are more interested in taking personal responsibility and using opportunity for bettering their situation.

mentalbunny

25th January 2003, 21:44

Unfortunately it looks like CI is right, so you comrades in the US have a duty to change this, to show them that in reality their opportunities are minimal and that they can get more, that they are being robbed in broad daylight by the top 10% of that country and that they can make a difference to their own lives, to their children's lives and to the lives of millions of people like them.

Mazdak

25th January 2003, 21:56

Well, by defending socialism and the USSR and such, i have done wonders(or so i have heard) . I managed to convert a friend and now he has gone and done a pretty good job getting most of the people he knows to go leftist. The trick is finding a way to make it appeal to both the most pacifictic anarchists and the most conservative republicans all at once. I have also done so with many other people.

So much for me just playing dictator eh? i am probably doing more work than any of you teens for spreading the cause.

mentalbunny

25th January 2003, 22:11

Mazdak, are you sure they are really left, and if so, libertarian or authoritarian, as we have all seen several times that authoritarian leftism does not work in a single state.

Mazdak

25th January 2003, 22:39

The first objective is either turning them authoritarian(if they already are leftist or at least anything left of republicans/democrats) and turning them left if they are on the right. They aren't necessarily authoritarian, however i have done my share in wiping away anti stalin sentiment from their minds.

Geddan

26th January 2003, 00:55

(Edited by Geddan at 1:57 am on Jan. 26, 2003)

Geddan

26th January 2003, 00:56

Tell me of Stalin, Mazdak, tell me of him. I am leftist, and neither authoritarian nor libertarian, and I would like to know how you eliminate my (few) anti-Stalin mind patterns. Erase some basic anti-Stalin lies in my mind.

mentalbunny

28th January 2003, 14:50

How can you be sane and not anti-stalinist? I just don't understand this one.

Capitalist Imperial

28th January 2003, 19:20

Stalinists are the most legitimate communists, because they concede what the reality of true communism is in real-life application.

Mazdak

28th January 2003, 21:55

Well, one must be sane to be stalinist. First off, "Stalinism" as you would call it is nothing but a variation of Marxist-leninism.

what you would consider authoritarianism is simply a response to the socialism applied to a country in a realistic way, a semi anarchistic state with few laws and almost anything easy to access cannot control its people. To pave the road to communism, one must force the people to not slack off. They have to work. Changes must be forced. People must be made to work, must be made to accept the changes. Education cant help unless the populace is loyal and understands the conditions it is in.

mentalbunny

29th January 2003, 08:19

I see where you are coming from but I disagree, lives should not be lost to the extent that they were when Stalin was in power, and nothing anyone can say will change that opinion.

Capitalist Imperial

30th January 2003, 00:55

Quote: from Mazdak on 9:55 pm on Jan. 28, 2003
Well, one must be sane to be stalinist. First off, "Stalinism" as you would call it is nothing but a variation of Marxist-leninism.

what you would consider authoritarianism is simply a response to the socialism applied to a country in a realistic way, a semi anarchistic state with few laws and almost anything easy to access cannot control its people. To pave the road to communism, one must force the people to not slack off. They have to work. Changes must be forced. People must be made to work, must be made to accept the changes. Education cant help unless the populace is loyal and understands the conditions it is in.

Finally, a leftist who understands true communism!

Stormin Norman

31st January 2003, 12:36

That's why I always had a respect for Mazdak. At least, he is honest about the constructs of communism, unlike the hideous worms who constantly try to redefine socialism into a concept as wholesome as grandma's apple pie.

guerrillaradio

31st January 2003, 13:40

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 12:36 pm on Jan. 31, 2003
That's why I always had a respect for Mazdak. At least, he is honest about the constructs of communism, unlike the hideous worms who constantly try to redefine socialism into a concept as wholesome as grandma's apple pie.

Or, to put it more accurately, he's pretty similar to yourself in terms of opinion.

mentalbunny

31st January 2003, 19:04

GR summed it up very well, I'd say. I've been watching for a while, ever since the stalinists were restricted to OI and it's been interesting, but owrrying to see Mazdak teaming up with the capitalists. Perhaps they'll convert him, he's more likely to go the the right than to go to the libertarian side of things, I fear.

Capitalist Imperial

31st January 2003, 19:27

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 1:40 pm on Jan. 31, 2003

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 12:36 pm on Jan. 31, 2003
That's why I always had a respect for Mazdak. At least, he is honest about the constructs of communism, unlike the hideous worms who constantly try to redefine socialism into a concept as wholesome as grandma's apple pie.

Or, to put it more accurately, he's pretty similar to yourself in terms of opinion.

To the contrary.

Mazdak is still authoritarian and favors centrally controlled economics and military conscription.

I think I can safely speak for SN when I say he supports capitalism, free markets, democracy, and a voluntary milititary.

Comrade Daniel

31st January 2003, 21:10

All of that sux

Moskitto

31st January 2003, 21:41

that's the same reason why we respect BN, because he realises what capitalism truely is, an evil, nationalist, dictatorial, absolutist system.

Saint-Just

31st January 2003, 22:05

'but owrrying to see Mazdak teaming up with the capitalists. Perhaps they'll convert him, he's more likely to go the the right than to go to the libertarian side of things, I fear.'

The 'libertarian side of things' is the whats towards the right of Marxism-Leninism. The libertarians mix socialism with the ideals of bourgeois democracy, denying the workers of ever achieving emancipation.

Oh yes!...a Marxist-Leninist converted to capitalism. Ha! what nonsense. Marxism-Leninism is the polar opposite of capitalism. The reason why Capitalist Imperial respects Mazdak is that CI can use the tactics the bourgeois democracy so likes to use against communists. Where as those who mix socialism with liberal idealism are less easy to attack as they embrance substantial parts of the ideology of the 'democratic' bourgeoisie. Thus the libertarians are the ones likely to be converted to capitalists.

Mazdak

31st January 2003, 22:24

Actually, i have been "allying" with the capitalists because i found the capitalists here at least tried to prove their points. They actually debated. Most of the leftists simply said things like "fuk yoo capie" and such statements or ranted. Since everyone criticizes the capitalists for flaming and ranting, i think it is only fair to do the same for the leftists.

Thank you Chairman Mao for another excellent quality post and helping clear such suspicions of my political ideas as evolving towards capitalist.

Cassius Clay

31st January 2003, 23:09

Okay I haven't read the first eleven pages of this thread but SN and CI.

The FACT that the U$ has 3 million more people in prison than the USSR ever had in prison means nothing to you. U$ as of 1998 had 2.8% of the adult population in prison, USSR had a maximum of 2.4%.

Cassius Clay

31st January 2003, 23:15

Just by reading page 11 of this thread it's clear you all need to do some research.

USSR under Stalin was DEMOCRATIC, if any of you Capitalists or so called 'leftists' can name me a state where workers would walk into their managers of local party officials office and demand their resignation and actually get it then please do.

As I explained in another thread the example of Leningrad in 1937 where over 50% of the governing officials were replaced in elections NOT dominated by petty scandals and the princeple whoever manages to get the most media outlets in their pockets wins clearly shows us how democracy should and can work.

Capitalist Imperial

31st January 2003, 23:42

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 11:15 pm on Jan. 31, 2003

USSR under Stalin was DEMOCRATIC

Will anyone on this board suggest even a pretense of legitimacy on CC's part?

Capitalist Imperial

31st January 2003, 23:45

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 11:09 pm on Jan. 31, 2003
Okay I haven't read the first eleven pages of this thread but SN and CI.

The FACT that the U$ has 3 million more people in prison than the USSR ever had in prison means nothing to you. U$ as of 1998 had 2.8% of the adult population in prison, USSR had a maximum of 2.4%.

Yes, in free market capitalism, a certain element of trust is required, as individuals are given greater rights and responsibilities. An unfortunate byproduct of this are those who abuse these rights and responsibilites, and betray the system's trust. Thus, a higher crime rate.

It is not a function of the system's restrictions, but to the contrary the system's allowances.

Cassius Clay

1st February 2003, 13:00

So what's your definition of democracy Capitalist Imperial? Certainly a two party state where the outcome of every election is decided by which party manages to get the most media outlets on their side is hardly Democratic. Is a 'Democracy' a place where the ruling mafiosi government massacres hundreds of democraticly elected candidates with the help of foriegn merceanaries? As happened in Russia in 1993 to the Communists who were elected to the House of Soviets.

Such a thing never happened in the USSR where in 1937 over 50% of the governing officials in Leningrad were replaced in elections. The precedure and results of which were all captured by the Nazis and later deemed perfectly fair and free by western historians after the war.

Once again CI if you would like to name me a state where workers had the right to fire the factory manager then please do.