Viewing Thread:
"For the American People?"

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/ sm_837220.html?menu=news.latestheadlines

So, Dubya on the one hand praises the 'brave Americans' who have fought for their country, but on the other hand he doesn't want them to have any compensation for what they've gone through. Doubtless Belly No Balls will start squealing "it was a war, what do they expect?", at which point a little something called the Geneva Convention should be mentioned...

But the real reason I want to bring this story to attention is that Dubya is saying he wants the money to be spent on "reconstruction". And who is leading the 'reconstruction' program? Why...is it the companies who backed and financed Dubya's election campaign?! You know, it is...

This lying, thieving, warmongering chimp isn't even trying to hide his corruption any more. He is happy to sell out the people he purports to represent to his friends in big business. What a patriotic American he is; putting the needs of the rich few before those of the needy many. He is in need of a good, hard, car park kicking.

How about answering someone's points once in a while? You know, just for a trial period maybe? See if you like it?

Light, Light, Light, you just don't get it do you ?

I do not care what you think, nor say of me, and I never will. But carry on, I'm sure someone is getting some amusement somewhere, this is the internet after all.

Heh. Just re-read this line;

Belldandy wrote:
> I'm not even going to waste further time and effort on you Light after
> your comments in the other thread.

So let me get this straight; you're saying that because of something from ANOTHER thread, you're going to run away crying like a dog with a fish-hook in it's balls from THIS thread?

~shakes head~

Your emotional, intellectual, and moral cowardice knows no bounds. Cretin.

Belldandy wrote:
> I'm not even going to waste further time and effort on you Light after
> your comments in the other thread. You'll think what you want and
> continue to do so no matter what.

No; I've said, time and time again, that I'm happy to listen to other people's opinion and am overjoyed to made to think about it. You on the other hand, with your string of lies, half truths, evasions, cowardice, and rank stupidity have yet to make me think.

I've also said over and over that I'm interested in making others think, not changing their opinions. You keep pretending you haven't read that. But you have. So why do you keep saying it? Because you're too scared to actually think about your opinions. You just want the White House to keep telling you what to think.

Not going to waste time? That must be why you keep replying to me. If you really weren't gonna waste time, you wouldn't have bothered to tell me.

Coward; running away as soon as he has to think for himself.

Get your ass back to "Dude, Where's my country?" you butt-snorkler.

I'm not even going to waste further time and effort on you Light after your comments in the other thread. You'll think what you want and continue to do so no matter what.

Belldandy wrote:

>
> Saddam is gone, all that remains are those who would see Iraq become
> a dictatorship once more. If you call that unnecessary then that is
> your choice.

Bwah ha ha ha ha haaaa! Iraq is currently ruled by an unelected leader imposed by an invading foreign power. He is unpopular, and the soldiers under his command are being killed every day. In retaliation, the occupying soldiers kill innocent Iraqi civilians. Meanwhile, the occupying foreign power are resisting all calls to hand the country back over, instead insisting on a vague timetable of power handover.
If that's not a dictatorship, what is?

>
> Light's account:
>
> "the UN was formed with the idea that no one nation should be
> able to bully the rest of the world into complying with whatever fun
> packed scheme they had come up with during that particular week.
> Britain had to hand its empire back to the people who actually lived
> there."

>
> is quite a funny, shortsighted and hopelessly naive account of that
> time and what happened.

So...the fact that the UK handed back it's empire under the auspices of the UN...that doesn't, to you, indicate that I've given you a simplified version of what happened? Heh.
The UN was, as I've always made clear when you come up with your historically inaccurate lies, formed to replace the League of Nations. The idea of both organisations was to avoid world wars. Like the 2 that had just happened. Both world wars were a result of colonialism and/or Empire building. The UN and LofN were intended to stop this.

Now then; you seem to have made an assertion ('funny, shortsighted, and naive'), and given nothing to back it up. I on the other hand have given reasons for my belief and opinion. You haven't. Because you can't. Because, and I think I've made this clear, you're a clown.



>
> as for "it will neve happen" - in all likelihood history
> will not repeat itself, for a start there is no American Empire, and
> there are few nations willing to engage in actual warfare anymore
> against another nation unless they can be sure of a victory at little
> cost to their own people. The loss of the Empire post WW2 was down to
> economic and military reasons, we did not have the money nor forces
> to continue direct rule.

My, you are determined to make yourself look stupid aren't you?

Okay...I gave the simplified version and you missed the point. So lets go through this stage by stage;

- The war basically bankrupted us. Prior to WWII, we were THE world power.

- Afterwards, we had not the power and influence we once enjoyed.

- Because of our decline, nations we once dominated economically or militarily were much noisier about wanting independence.

- Therefore, although we wanted to keep our Empire (check out some of the Conservative party rhetoric during their time in opposition post WW2 if you want to see what I mean), we could not resist the demands of those nations who wanted their independence. (If I were to be cruel, I'd point out that you have previously said these nations did not achieve independence. Now you're saying they did. Are you really that big an idiot that you can't remember what it was you said from one argument to the next?)

- And so, we had to basically hand it back. The newly created UN oversaw this.

Do you see?

>The world has changed and this is not the
> situation today. One of these changes is that the majority know that
> the UN is currently little more than an economic bargaining shop
> where people wring concessions from each other via supporting ideas.
> This would be the UN which has stood by and watched the atrocities of
> the late twentieth century and generally issued little more than
> words on paper, then acted all shocked when the
> nation/person/whatever in question ignores them.

Right, right...so everything literally has to happen in exactly the same manner does it? History has to repeat itself exactly, to the letter?
And do you know WHY the UN has ignored everything? Thanks to the UK, France, the US, Russia, and China vetoing almost everything that would have had an effect. And who is the worst offender? Oh yeah...

You might also like to consider that the UN treaties concerning torture etc have not been ratified because of US obstruction.




>
> The mistake is to think that "Gunboat Diplomacy" is not of
> this age, when it is, in part it is the only thing certain factions
> will respect and take notice of. In a matter of months Gonboat
> Diplomacy did what years of UN paperwork could not - end the Iraqi
> Saddam regime, destory the Taliban, destory the terrorist elements
> for the most part in the Phillipines, cut funding to thousands of
> cells worldwide, and more.

Yes, and Gunboat diplomacy has also isolated the US, allowed extremist terrorists to get a foothold in Iraq they once didn't have, left the people of Afghanistan with no rule of any law (not even the hateful brand of Sharia that the Taliban practiced) and vulnerable to the whims of the warlords who run the country, increased funding to cells (thanks to the sympathy of those nice, wealthy, Wahhabi Moslems of the middle east), and created more terrorists worldwide than the Phillipines could ever hold.

Oh, and as the terrorists are still operating in the Phillipines, you'll pardon me for dismissing that claim as the lie of a clown trying to hammer home a non-existant point.

Destroy terrorism? Then why are we all living in fear of terrorist attacks? Why the constant warnings?

>
> Ah, bless, Light with his "these countries are free and
> independent" type ideas. If only that were true.

Yeah, bless me for actually wanting freedom and democracy for all men, and for all mankind to be equal. Isn't that kinda...well, one of the principles that the US is founded on? Yet here you are, ridiculing me for wanting it. Hey, doesn't that make me...well, more of a pro American than you?

Whereas you....well, if you don't believe in that, what do you believe in? Because as far as I can tell, all you want is war and lots of it. And as you're not making any of the huge amounts of money that Dubya and his buddies make, I can only conclude that you want all of this conflict because you are a bloodthirsty little cockwallet who's only experience of violence is on a computer screen, and who's knowledge of international politics comes directly from the pen of Tom Clancy. Anything to add to that?

And finally...you've totally avoided addressing the lies you wrote in this thread about the orignal story, didn't you Bell? You're running away, throwing up smokescreens behind you. But alas, everyone is so painfully aware of your methods now. So all you achieve by this evasiveness is to confirm what an intellectual, moral, and emotional coward you are. So run away and scweam some more Bell; you won't attempt to address the points put to you, because you're a coward and a rather stupid one at that.

unknown kernel wrote:
> Our war-loving politicians going to have convince us
> that we needed an unnecessary war, that we deserved to be lied to,

Saddam is gone, all that remains are those who would see Iraq become a dictatorship once more. If you call that unnecessary then that is your choice.

Light's account:

"the UN was formed with the idea that no one nation should be able to bully the rest of the world into complying with whatever fun packed scheme they had come up with during that particular week. Britain had to hand its empire back to the people who actually lived there."

is quite a funny, shortsighted and hopelessly naive account of that time and what happened.

as for "it will neve happen" - in all likelihood history will not repeat itself, for a start there is no American Empire, and there are few nations willing to engage in actual warfare anymore against another nation unless they can be sure of a victory at little cost to their own people. The loss of the Empire post WW2 was down to economic and military reasons, we did not have the money nor forces to continue direct rule. The world has changed and this is not the situation today. One of these changes is that the majority know that the UN is currently little more than an economic bargaining shop where people wring concessions from each other via supporting ideas. This would be the UN which has stood by and watched the atrocities of the late twentieth century and generally issued little more than words on paper, then acted all shocked when the nation/person/whatever in question ignores them.

The mistake is to think that "Gunboat Diplomacy" is not of this age, when it is, in part it is the only thing certain factions will respect and take notice of. In a matter of months Gonboat Diplomacy did what years of UN paperwork could not - end the Iraqi Saddam regime, destory the Taliban, destory the terrorist elements for the most part in the Phillipines, cut funding to thousands of cells worldwide, and more.

Ah, bless, Light with his "these countries are free and independent" type ideas. If only that were true.

Belldandy wrote:

>
> Well you missed the point...

No Bell, I didn't; you're still a clown. Want more proof? Mosey on over to the Dude, Where's My Country thread. So funny, it should be on the Paramount channel.
>
> Simpy saying that as long as the mentality of anti-US,
> anti-everything, people is "let's throw stuff" and cause
> disorder/riots and so forth they'll never be taken seriously. What's
> the image of just about every WTO protest now ? Rows of police, burnt
> out cars, water cannons etc. Whatever legitimate protest there was
> gets lost.

Maybe so, maybe so. But the fact is, you Bell, YOU are a clown. And no-one, but no-one takes you remotely seriously. Am I getting through to you here at all? I mean, I'm only carrying on because I want you to actually use your brain. A losing battle I admit, but I live in hope.

>
> No one needs to take the pro-war lobby seriously, or similar other
> supporters, because what they believe in is happening already. They
> don't need to convince anyone.

Heh. Here is something from my archives that covers your incredibly naive attitude;

There is a name for this; it's called "Gunboat Diplomacy", and it's something that the American public seems to approve of greatly. Well, not wishing to p!ss on their chips, but the last empire to try gunboat diplomacy was the same one that invented it; the British Empire. As I recall from the history of our little empire, we too had something of a belief in our divine right to tell the rest of the world what to do. We too took advantage of having a better military than anybody else. And yet here we are, dancing to whatever tune that Dubya spits out. We're no longer the biggest kid on the block. And do you know why? Because, after all the resentment that built up towards the imperious attitude of the English, the rest of the world made damned sure that it brought Britain down a peg or two at the first available opportunity. In our case, that opportunity was the Second World War. After the defeat of the axis powers, the UN was formed with the idea that no one nation should be able to bully the rest of the world into complying with whatever fun packed scheme they had come up with during that particular week. Britain had to hand its empire back to the people who actually lived there.

You, Belldandy, seem to believe, rather sweetly, that this could never ever happen to them. Maybe it's cos you beat NOD every time when you play Command and Conquer or something. Maybe you're just plain stupid. I've tried asking you and others like you to justify this belief and have been met with answers ranging from "We could conquer the world so no one will ever mess with us" (evidently this gentleman belongs to the school of thought that believes Vietnam and Somalia aren't worth conquering...), to "It won't happen" (I tried pressing the giver of that last answer for a reason why it will never happen; unless you count repeating "It won't happen" over and over in the hope that I'd go away as a reason, none was forthcoming). Of course, the last time it took a world war to make something like this happen. Will it take the same thing happening again? Lets face facts; Dubya is doing his best to see it will be so.

Don't be so harsh about Bush. Not until you have considered these two facts:

#1 Gore in the run up to the election appeared to be the most boring man on earth

#2 Without Bush we would never have had such great comedy on 2DTV.