NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush opens mouth and inserts foot once again!

Today in his press conference, President Bush applauded the courage of Iraqis, stating that he is “amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate.”

In reality, 890,000 Iraqis have moved to Jordan, Iran and Syria since Hussein’s fall and more than 300,000 have fled to other parts of Iraq to escape the violence. Additionally, 71 percent of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq within a year, saying “they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq.”

Iraqis aren’t “tolerating” the violence. They’re just trying to survive.

Full transcript:

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN: Thank you, Mr. President. Back on Iraq, a group of American and Iraqi health officials today released a report saying that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the Iraq war. That figure is 20 times the figure that you cited in December at 30,000. Do you care to amend or update your figure and do you consider this a credible report?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I don’t consider it a credible report, neither does General Casey and neither do Iraqi officials. I do know that a lot of innocent people have died and it troubles me and grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate.

Link with video (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/11/bush-iraq-tolerate-violence)

I bet the Iraqi people are just thrilled to death that we decided to fight terrorism "over there so we do not have to fight it over here" :rolleyes:

Arrogance, aloofness and stupidity are very dangerous qualities to have in abundance in the most powerful man in the world.

The Iraqis are tolerating the violence quite well -- they are so incredibly dedicated to a peaceful, democratic, stable society that they are willing to risk their lives to achieve that noble goal. They have the resolve to refrain from fighting the fiendish terrorists who are wreaking havoc upon their country because they know doing so will only perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence. I applaud their steadfast determination, as well as our president's dauntlessness in the face of adversity. Here's to freedom and peace in Iraq!

The Iraqis are tolerating the violence quite well -- they are so incredibly dedicated to a peaceful, democratic, stable society that they are willing to risk their lives to achieve that noble goal. They have the resolve to refrain from fighting the fiendish terrorists who are wreaking havoc upon their country because they know doing so will only perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence. I applaud their steadfast determination, as well as our president's dauntlessness in the face of adversity. Here's to freedom and peace in Iraq!

Can I ask you, how are they supposed to untolerate it? They don't tolerate it because they want to. They tolerate it because they haveno choice. They overwhelmingly hate us and want us gone. If Bush went to Iraq they'd kill him and dance in the street on his corpse. They hate us, they hate Bush and they hate what we've done to them.

The Iraqis are tolerating the violence quite well -- they are so incredibly dedicated to a peaceful, democratic, stable society that they are willing to risk their lives to achieve that noble goal. They have the resolve to refrain from fighting the fiendish terrorists who are wreaking havoc upon their country because they know doing so will only perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence. I applaud their steadfast determination, as well as our president's dauntlessness in the face of adversity. Here's to freedom and peace in Iraq!

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

Tolerate?

Please tell me he is fucking KIDDING?!

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

That just shows your lack of the capacity to construct a coherent argument and the tenuous nature of your position. You refuse to argue because doing so would necessitate backing up your assertions with facts, and there are precious few of those.

That just shows your lack of the capacity to construct a coherent argument and the tenuous nature of your position. You refuse to argue because doing so would necessitate backing up your assertions with facts, and there are precious few of those.

okay, but I did and you ignored it.

Why don't they just put peanut butter on Bush's lips (like they did with Mr. Ed) and dub in a voice? :D

Can I ask you, how are they supposed to untolerate it?

They can easily leave the country if they so desire. However, out of a loyal sense of patriotism, they are willing to stick it out so they can restore Iraq to its former glory -- and beyond.

The Iraqis are tolerating the violence quite well -- they are so incredibly dedicated to a peaceful, democratic, stable society that they are willing to risk their lives to achieve that noble goal. They have the resolve to refrain from fighting the fiendish terrorists who are wreaking havoc upon their country because they know doing so will only perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence. I applaud their steadfast determination, as well as our president's dauntlessness in the face of adversity. Here's to freedom and peace in Iraq!

Dude. they aren't tolerating the levels of violence they put up with every damned day, they are doing the best they can at surviving it. Not the same thing.

May I ask: When was the last time Bush, anyone in the Iraqi puppet government, or anyone in the United States Congress talked to an Iraqi who lives outside the green zone full time? Furthermore, I wonder if any of the aforementioned people know that Iraq is actually great in landmass than the green zone?

They can easily leave the country if they so desire. However, out of a loyal sense of patriotism, they are willing to stick it out so they can restore Iraq to its former glory -- and beyond.

Alot of them ARE leaving the country. It's sort of hard for alot of them to since it's also hard to walk down the street without getting caught up in a firefight and killed.

Or tortured and killed in the middle of the night.

Or raped and killed by U.S. troops.

...

God Bless Amerika and her troops, for they bring .45 ammunition for all!

They can easily leave the country if they so desire. However, out of a loyal sense of patriotism, they are willing to stick it out so they can restore Iraq to its former glory -- and beyond.

They're leaving in droves! Over a million since teh war started! At least the ones that can. That's such an ignorant statement I don't know where to begin. Would you just up and leave yoru home? This is where their family and friends are - at least the ones left alive. While it's true they can't get together with their friends and families as much because they're mostly afraid to leave their houses or talk to anyone, they have centuries of history that tie them to the land they live on. I usually try to just stick to the facts in an argument, but you're as stupid as our president. Please never vote.

you're as stupid as our president

Please note that I consider that a compliment. He is one of the smartest and most insightful presidents in the history of the US, despite the fact that he cannot correctly pronounce several words. However, certain autistic people are terrible at pronounciation, yet their intellect far surpasses that of the average man.

Iraqis never wanted "democracy." The Sunnis wanted to maintain the status quo. The Shi'ites wanted an Iran-style theocracy. The Kurds wanted independence.

Even if they did want democracy, it's not our job to shove it down their throats.

Please note that I consider that a compliment. He is one of the smartest and most insightful presidents in the history of the US, despite the fact that he cannot correctly pronounce several words. However, certain autistic people are terrible at pronounciation, yet their intellect far surpasses that of the average man.

Are you really that brainwashed? Seriously. Watch something other than Fox News for once. Bush is one of the worst leaders of any country in recent memory. If Bush wasn't partially retarded we wouldn't be in the mess we are.

That just shows your lack of the capacity to construct a coherent argument and the tenuous nature of your position. You refuse to argue because doing so would necessitate backing up your assertions with facts, and there are precious few of those.

I must say, at this time, this:

Imagine that some country tried to 'liberate' us. How would you feel?

Please note that I consider that a compliment. He is one of the smartest and most insightful presidents in the history of the US, despite the fact that he cannot correctly pronounce several words.Or put together coherent sentences or run a country well or stick to his conservative principles or run a company or a baseball team or raise his children well or get along with his dad who thinks he's stupid as well. The guy is an abject failure in everything he has ever done. Everything. He has failed at every single thing. This war is a disaster, his presidency is a disaster on so many levels I don't know where to begin. This draft-dodging, pussy assed idiot is the worst thing to ever happen to America.

However, certain autistic people are terrible at pronounciation, yet their intellect far surpasses that of the average man.

The other thing about autistic people is that every single one of them would make a better president than the one we have now.

Or put together coherent sentences or run a country well or stick to his conservative principles or run a company or a baseball team or raise his children well or get along with his dad who thinks he's stupid as well. The guy is an abject failure in everything he has ever done. Everything. He has failed at every single thing. This war is a disaster, his presidency is a disaster on so many levels I don't know where to begin. This draft-dodging, pussy assed idiot is the worst thing to ever happen to America.

Don't forget to add that he's an orientationist because an invisable dude in the sky told him so.

Are you really that brainwashed? Seriously. Watch something other than Fox News for once. Bush is one of the worst leaders of any country in recent memory. If Bush wasn't partially retarded we wouldn't be in the mess we are.

Hes a troll, as much fun as it is to argue with stupidity, please stop feeding him.

"Dauntless"! There's a word which doesn't get enough use nowadays!

Dauntless and insightful ... GWB! ... oh stop please. :D :D :D

Hes a troll, as much fun as it is to argue with stupidity, please stop feeding him.

I know he's a troll. I like debating with ignorance. It makes me feel like a better person.

If Bush wasn't partially retarded we wouldn't be in the mess we are.

Then we must thank God that we have a "partially retarded" leader who has taken great strides towards worldwide peace and democracy; a leader who has spurred our economy into growth and created a millions of jobs; a leader who is dedicated to our safety; a leader who does not want a single child or oppressed person to be left behind. A truly great leader.

Imagine that some country tried to 'liberate' us. How would you feel?

We have a stable, functioning democracy; we are not led by a genocidal maniac who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people. We are already free, and so we cannot be liberated.

We have a stable, functioning democracy; we are not led by a genocidal maniac who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people. We are already free, and so we cannot be liberated.

You didn't answer the question. Would you, or would you not, hypothetically speaking, support the right of a country that was magically more free than the USA to liberate us from our less-than-free political system through armed invasion?

Yes, a great leader.

He has made us an international pariah, accumulated more debt than any other administration in history, tore our border off its hinges, severely trampled our civil liberties, bogged us down in two no-win wars, created a power vacuum in the Middle East, and has done a much better job of helping al Qaeda recruit more members than bin Laden could have ever dreamed.

Then we must thank God that we have a "partially retarded" leader who has taken great strides towards worldwide peace and democracy; a leader who has spurred our economy into growth and created a millions of jobs; a leader who is dedicated to our safety; a leader who does not want a single child or oppressed person to be left behind. A truly great leader.

All hail the great leader, so ably schooled in statecraft by his father, so noble and self-sacrificing, a rock and beacon for all his people.
Long live Kim Jong Il !! :D

Yes, a great leader.

He has made us an international pariah, accumulated more debt than any other administration in history, tore our border off its hinges, severely trampled our civil liberties, bogged us down in two no-win wars, created a power vacuum in the Middle East, and has done a much better job of helping al Qaeda recruit more members than bin Laden could have ever dreamed.

And pronounces it, new-clee-ear.

And pronounces it, new-clee-ear.

lol

We have a stable, functioning democracy; we are not led by a genocidal maniac who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people. We are already free, and so we cannot be liberated.

The world isn't divided into "free" and "not free", MTAE.

The Iraqis are tolerating the violence quite well -- they are so incredibly dedicated to a peaceful, democratic, stable society that they are willing to risk their lives to achieve that noble goal. They have the resolve to refrain from fighting the fiendish terrorists who are wreaking havoc upon their country because they know doing so will only perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence. I applaud their steadfast determination, as well as our president's dauntlessness in the face of adversity. Here's to freedom and peace in Iraq!

People like yourself make me wonder one thing MTAE.
If you are so gung ho for war, and you have posted numerous times in support of not only wars of agression but also torture and killing on a huge scale, why are you not in Iraq right at this moment supporting your President?
Sign up (http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp) and put your ass on the line if you think that this war is such a noble endeavor.
I look forward to your first post from Iraq!

That just shows your lack of the capacity to construct a coherent argument and the tenuous nature of your position. You refuse to argue because doing so would necessitate backing up your assertions with facts, and there are precious few of those.

Please don't assume that CK can't defend the argument just becauses he's frustrated by denials that there is any problem in Iraq at all, that the Iraqi's see us as their saviors, and love us all

towards worldwide peace

You say this in a thread about the IRAQ WAR - about a man who stated he was going to go to war with Iraq REGARDLESS of what reason he had.

a leader who has spurred our economy into growth

Link (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/jobs-j03.shtml)

As you can see by the link - this statement is false. Inflation is going up while wages are going down. The housing market is collapsing and our industrial base in now located in COMMUNIST China.

and created a millions of jobs

This is a distorted statement. Most of the jobs created are in low paying service industries like fast food. COMMUNIST China and India both are creating at least double the amount of engineering jobs. Lets see how long America can remain a world leader in anything following THAT path.

a leader who is dedicated to our safety

And he does this HOW? Invading STABLE nation that posed no threat to us and HURTING our ability to respond to countries that do. AKA, North Korea.

a leader who does not want a single child or oppressed person to be left behind

And he shows this by supporting the Arabian regime which is just as bad as the Iraqi one was. What's the difference here? Which one exports the most oil?

Oh yeah.

A truly great leader.

See above.

Please note that I consider that a compliment. He is one of the smartest and most insightful presidents in the history of the US, despite the fact that he cannot correctly pronounce several words.

Am I supposed to take your word for this or can you offer any proof at all to back up this statement?

Then we must thank God that we have a "partially retarded" leader who has taken great strides towards worldwide peace and democracy; a leader who has spurred our economy into growth and created a millions of jobs; a leader who is dedicated to our safety; a leader who does not want a single child or oppressed person to be left behind. A truly great leader.

You set them up, I knock them down.
Too easy

Bush economy nothing to broadcast
By Brett Arends
Boston Herald Business Columnist
Wednesday, October 11, 2006

The neocon talk-show hosts were so angry last week they could barely speak.
The “mainstream media” and “the drive-by media” and “the liberal media,” they said, were deliberately ignoring the president’s great record on the stock market, on gasoline prices and on jobs.
Why don’t the media talk about the Dow, they demanded.
OK. Let’s.
The Dow Jones Industrials Average closed last week at 11,867. That’s a gain of 1,279 points since George Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001.
That’s an annualized gain of 2 percent.
Under Bill Clinton, it was 15.9 percent.
Bush’s dad: 9.8 percent.
Ronald Reagan: 11.3 percent.
These figures are public record.
The index also did better under Presidents Ford, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge.
Much better.
Since World War I, the only presidents with a worse Dow Jones Industrials record than the incumbent were Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.
Hoover, Nixon, Carter, Bush? Hmmmm.
I’m saying nothing.
Let’s talk about gasoline prices.
Yes, they’re down 73 cents a gallon from the peak in August. Average today: $2.26. But in January 2001, they were $1.46. So they’re still up 55 percent.
Jobs?
Since January 2001, the jobless rate has risen from 4.2 percent to 4.6 percent.
Over that period, non-farm payrolls have added an average of 46,200 jobs a month.
That’s good, right?
Clinton: 237,000 a month.
Reagan: 168,000.
Carter: 215,000. Carter!
Bush’s dad presided over a recession so bad it cost him his job. His record must be worse, right?
His average: 54,000 a month.
That’s 17 percent higher than junior’s.
Hey, don’t blame me.
They asked.

LINK (http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=161760&format=text)

Any other fairy tales you need enlightening about MTAE?
______________

*snip*

Be prepared for lots of tirades against "liberal propaganda."

The world isn't divided into "free" and "not free", MTAE.

Sure it is. It is also the responsibility of the free countries to spread their accomplished system of government to countries which are not free in an effort to increase their quality of life, as we have done in Iraq. Sure, there's a war going on, but they can vote! It's better than what Saddam was slaughtering and imprisoning people by the truckload.

Sure it is. It is also the responsibility of the free countries to spread their accomplished system of government to countries which are not free in an effort to increase their quality of life, as we have done in Iraq.

Does this sound like Manifest Destiny to anyone else?

I look forward to your first post from Iraq!

Why should I sign up? Is my ego so incredibly big that I believe that I, personally, can make a difference in Iraq? The answer is that I cannot. Have you ever heard of the prisoner's dilemma? This is an instance of it, and I am making the logically correct choice because I am a rational human being. The only people who have a reason to join the army are those who need the money; I am successful enough in other areas that enlisting is not necessary.

Sure it is. It is also the responsibility of the free countries to spread their accomplished system of government to countries which are not free in an effort to increase their quality of life, as we have done in Iraq. Sure, there's a war going on, but they can vote! It's better than what Saddam was slaughtering and imprisoning people by the truckload.

It's when you say things like that that makes people believe you're just a troll.

Does this sound like Manifest Destiny to anyone else?

Is there anything wrong with that particular philosophy? It was our mandate to civilize the heathen and spread our effective system of government throughout the continent. But why should we stop there? It was an extremely successful policy -- it now needs to be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general. Of course, we'll create some reservations where Arabs can continue their backwards method of living, just like we did for the Indians. In the end, that will entail a higher quality of life for American settlers in the Middle East, which is a net benefit for the world in general. Now, I'm not advocating world domination -- just parts of Africa, Asia, South America, and possibly Antartica.

It's when you say things like that that makes people believe you're just a troll.

I seem to recall an oft-quoted statement uttered by Ben Franklin. It goes something like this: "those who are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither and shall get none." It is easily applicable to Iraq -- they should not be willing to give up freedom to gain security. Sure, they're not safe, but they're free. It's exactly this type of situation which Benny envisioned when saying that. They gave up their safety so they could vote, and they made the right choice. Why am I a troll when I make a statement like that, but liberals are not when they say that when referring to gun control?

Does this sound like Manifest Destiny to anyone else?

*raises hand*

Is there anything wrong with that particular philosophy? It was our mandate to civilize the heathen and spread our effective system of government throughout the continent. But why should we stop there? It was an extremely successful policy -- it now needs to be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general. Of course, we'll create some reservations where Arabs can continue their backwards method of living, just like we did for the Indians. In the end, that will entail a higher quality of life for American settlers in the Middle East, which is a net benefit for the world in general. Now, I'm not advocating world domination -- just parts of Africa, Asia, South America, and possibly Antartica.

You are a troll, admit it.

Why should I sign up? Is my ego so incredibly big that I believe that I, personally, can make a difference in Iraq? The answer is that I cannot. Have you ever heard of the prisoner's dilemma? This is an instance of it, and I am making the logically correct choice because I am a rational human being. The only people who have a reason to join the army are those who need the money; I am successful enough in other areas that enlisting is not necessary.

Pat Tillman quite the NFL and joined the armed services to fight for his country in Afghanistan after 9/11. Not everyone does it for the money. Plenty of people join the military to fight for and defend the country they love and for the causes they believe in. Unlike Colin Powell - the one person who ever served this administration that I have any respect for - but much Like George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, you are all talk but when it comes to the fighting you're happy letting someone else do that. They all skipped out on Vietnam, you're skipping out on Iraq and Afghanistan. The truth is you're a pussy.:)

I seem to recall an oft-quoted statement uttered by Ben Franklin. It goes something like this: "those who are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither and shall get none."

How hypocritical. Neocons are more than willing to give up freedom for security. :rolleyes:

I seem to recall an oft-quoted statement uttered by Ben Franklin. It goes something like this: "those who are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither and shall get none." It is easily applicable to Iraq -- they should not be willing to give up freedom to gain security. Sure, they're not safe, but they're free. It's exactly this type of situation which Benny envisioned when saying that.

He was talking about policies in a country that is already free to some extent, imposing limitations on that freedom in the name of gaining security. Not a policy of imperialism whereby the US can invade and occupy any nation you deem to be less "free."

Nice try at ass-raping Ben Franklin's corpse.

Why am I a troll when I make a statement like that, but liberals are not when they say that when referring to gun control?

Ah - I'm supposed to be a "liberal," is that it, and so I'm supposed to support gun control, so this is supposed to be relevant to the argument because it supposedly reveals some sort of supposed hypocrisy on my part?

Ha. Whether you are a troll or not is irrelevant to whether "liberals" on the subject of gun control are also trolls.

They can easily leave the country if they so desire. However, out of a loyal sense of patriotism, they are willing to stick it out so they can restore Iraq to its former glory -- and beyond.

That's assuming that the people who want to leave have the monetary means to do so. It takes a lot to remove oneself from one's home, in which many people have family history's in the area they live in going back hundreds of years, and is even harder to do sowhen you have no economic means to do so. The majoirty of the people in Iraq are dirt poor. THey have no means to move out. It's a hell of a lot easier said than done, my friend.

Please note that I consider that a compliment. He is one of the smartest and most insightful presidents in the history of the US, despite the fact that he cannot correctly pronounce several words. However, certain autistic people are terrible at pronounciation, yet their intellect far surpasses that of the average man.

Hold it... hold it...

Are we talking about the same man whom adamantly defended that Iraq had connection to 9/11, even when the committee which HE appointed stated very clearly otherwise?

Or perhaps the man who ran oil companies into the ground?

Or the coke-fiend?

Maybe the man who makes such blunders as:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."

That's a saying even a third grader could get right. Or is it the BRILLIANT man who never got better than a C- in college?


Is it the man who tried to nominate a person who had absolutely no legal experiance to the Supreme Court?

Or the man who seems to have completely ignored what his father had stated about how and invasion into Iraq would turn the country into a cess-pool, with nearly perpetual and un-ending conflict?

Compared to Thomas Jefferson(Whom I consider as one of the greatest):

"We are all Federalists, we are all Republicans", while trying, and succeeding, to unify an increasingly split nation. The man who was more than willing to make compromises on his Republican(Truly Republican, as in not the bullshite that it is today, which is a completely different party) ideals, and work WITH Federalists to ensure a stronger and more prosperous country. He had more insight in his right pinky toe than Bush has in his entire body.

Tell me, which "insightful" President are you talking about, which "intelligent" President are you talking about? Because he is, quite frankly, neither.

The gloves are off, mate.

Hes a troll, as much fun as it is to argue with stupidity, please stop feeding him.
I stopped feeding this troll awhile ago. I am now troll free. :D

The Iraqis are tolerating the violence quite well -- they are so incredibly dedicated to a peaceful, democratic, stable society that they are willing to risk their lives to achieve that noble goal. They have the resolve to refrain from fighting the fiendish terrorists who are wreaking havoc upon their country because they know doing so will only perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence. I applaud their steadfast determination, as well as our president's dauntlessness in the face of adversity. Here's to freedom and peace in Iraq!

Bullshit. If they're so "willing to risk their lives to achieve that noble goal", they would've deposed Saddam themselves, decades ago. Curb your jingoism.

Sure it is. It is also the responsibility of the free countries to spread their accomplished system of government to countries which are not free in an effort to increase their quality of life, as we have done in Iraq. Sure, there's a war going on, but they can vote! It's better than what Saddam was slaughtering and imprisoning people by the truckload.

No, false. Iraq was STABLE. Sure, there were some political killings, but it wasn't just random. What we have now is CIVIL WAR ALONG RELIGIOUS lines.

More people are dying now than ever died under the previous regime = FACT.

Deal with it.

Sure it is. It is also the responsibility of the free countries to spread their accomplished system of government to countries which are not free in an effort to increase their quality of life, as we have done in Iraq. Sure, there's a war going on, but they can vote! It's better than what Saddam was slaughtering and imprisoning people by the truckload.

This statement proves one thing: You're unable to understand humanity. You just can't understand that some people think differently. That, or you just think anyone who thinks differently is "a crazy liberal."

Right wing brainwashed clones like yourself are what's in the way of real progress in the world today.

On an interesting note: Did anyone notice he dropped his "Bush is an economic genius!" speech after a few posts showed him how wrong he is?

Is there anything wrong with that particular philosophy? It was our mandate to civilize the heathen and spread our effective system of government throughout the continent. But why should we stop there? It was an extremely successful policy -- it now needs to be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general. Of course, we'll create some reservations where Arabs can continue their backwards method of living, just like we did for the Indians. In the end, that will entail a higher quality of life for American settlers in the Middle East, which is a net benefit for the world in general. Now, I'm not advocating world domination -- just parts of Africa, Asia, South America, and possibly Antartica.

Well done, MTAE. You've even surpassed yourself in complete idiocy. All I want to say is:

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6890/donotfeedtrollvs6.jpg

Nice try at ass-raping Ben Franklin's corpse.

How the hell do you know what Ben Franklin meant to say by that quote? Can liberals read the minds of dead people, now? Don't be silly. I used it in the way he wanted it to be used -- in a context where people should be willing to fight for freedom even if it costs them their security (American Revolution, anyone -- or do you think he was referring to wire-tapping?).

Well done, MTAE. You've even surpassed yourself in complete idiocy. All I want to say is:

Yet you are not arguing the merits of my proposal -- you are simply discarding them offhand. See, if you're not willing to debate something, that's equivalent to ceding the point. I accept your resignation.

Yet you are not arguing the merits of my proposal -- you are simply discarding them offhand. See, if you're not willing to debate something, that's equivalent to ceding the point. I accept your resignation.


Not so much '"discarding them offhand" as "flushing" with ne'er a backward glance

Bullshit. If they're so "willing to risk their lives to achieve that noble goal", they would've deposed Saddam themselves, decades ago. Curb your jingoism.

They tried to -- there was implicit US support for an uprising during the 1991 Gulf War, but, in the end, the US did not send sufficient aid to the insurgents and they were brutally repressed. They're not going to try that one again so soon.

Is there anything wrong with that particular philosophy? It was our mandate to civilize the heathen and spread our effective system of government throughout the continent. But why should we stop there? It was an extremely successful policy -- it now needs to be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general. Of course, we'll create some reservations where Arabs can continue their backwards method of living, just like we did for the Indians. In the end, that will entail a higher quality of life for American settlers in the Middle East, which is a net benefit for the world in general. Now, I'm not advocating world domination -- just parts of Africa, Asia, South America, and possibly Antarctica.

How dare you claim some form of mandate for the genocide of the Native American people!
Where did this supposed mandate come from?
Are you so ignorant of history that you do not realize that the Iroquois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois) had an effective system of government.
So effective in fact that the Founding Fathers adopted some of it into our Constitution.
Native Americans were not animals to be tamed or slaughtered.
They were, and are, human beings with the same God given right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness that our Constitution guarantees everybody.
Read the Declaration of Independence sometime.
It does not claim that the rights of man were for Europeans only!
And then you, an obvious bloviating coward, have the balls to suggest reservations for Arabs after we steal their lands!
Do you even know the history of Native American reservations?
The misery, poverty and despair that were, and are, the hallmarks of life on a reservation?

I seem to recall an oft-quoted statement uttered by Ben Franklin. It goes something like this: "those who are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither and shall get none." It is easily applicable to Iraq -- they should not be willing to give up freedom to gain security. Sure, they're not safe, but they're free. It's exactly this type of situation which Benny envisioned when saying that. They gave up their safety so they could vote, and they made the right choice. Why am I a troll when I make a statement like that, but liberals are not when they say that when referring to gun control?

Exactly when were they given this choice?
Because I seem to remember something about an invasion.
You know a foreign army invading their country, dropping bombs wiping out entire families.
I missed the part where we nicely asked the Iraqi people if this is what they wanted.


They tried to -- there was implicit US support for an uprising during the 1991 Gulf War, but, in the end, the US did not send sufficient aid to the insurgents and they were brutally repressed. They're not going to try that one again so soon.

Your ignorance is astounding!
The reason that the uprising in 1991 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer) against Saddam failed is because your hero G.W. Bush's daddy fucked over the Shiites that were ready to topple Saddam.
We promised to support them but Daddy decided that it would not be politically expedient to do so.
Because of Bush senior the rebellion was crushed and tens of thousands were killed.

I really must thank MeansToAnEnd. (And some other people writing in this forum)

Before I have seen their postings, I couldn't belive that there are people who follow their leader everywhere without a question - especially in a democratic country. I thought, these people must be created by some bad writers in Hollywood. But now I see clear. Now I know, how dictatorships can be established. Now I know, how stupid idiots can get votes at elections.

Thank you very much, MTAE!!

*snip*

Still waiting for you to counter that, MTAE.

Where did this supposed mandate come from?

We had a much more effective system of government. While the Iroquois had a primitive form of government, it was nowhere near as advanced as that of the Europeans. Their society was stagnating, and had been for thousands of years -- they were shockingly backwards technologically and medically, while the Europeans had mastered the effective allocation of resources. They easily defeated the Native Americans for that very reason -- they were much better than them in all respects. The Iroquois were weak and ineffectual -- theirs lands were not being effectively managed, and somebody needed to step in and do something. The Europeans were just what the doctor ordered.

The misery, poverty and despair that were, and are, the hallmarks of life on a reservation?

That's the price that you have to pay if you want to retain your former way of life. If you were miserable, in povery, and despairing before, going on a reservation isn't going to change that. If the Arabs want to hold on to their corrupt, horrible, maniacal, Islamo-fascist, etc., methods of governments, they can do so -- on a reservation.

Exactly when were they given this choice?

They had the choice to flee, but they chose not to take it, and the made the right choice.

Now I know, how dictatorships can be established.

Because there are too few people such as me who will strongly defend the Second Amedment, without which the rest of the Bill of Rights is useless? You're welcome.

http://www.hrvc.net/imgs/grave.jpg
"to its former glory -- and beyond"

I guess I broke it, image no show up.
Fux.

Still waiting for your reply to this, this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11805461&postcount=35), MTAE.

Yet you are not arguing the merits of my proposal -- you are simply discarding them offhand. See, if you're not willing to debate something, that's equivalent to ceding the point. I accept your resignation.

All right then, if you want to play games, I'm ball.

Is there anything wrong with that particular philosophy?
Nothing, except the near genocide that went with it. Here we go, the USA even has a file in the 'Genocide' section of Wikipedia.

Throughout the 19th century, Native Americans were driven off their traditional lands to facilitate the installation of settlers (colonists). The explicit US policy of Indian Removal forced or coerced the relocation of major Native American groups in both the Southeast and the Northeast United States, resulting directly and indirectly in the deaths of tens of thousands. The subsequent process of assimilations, though a less active means of a ethnic cleansing, was no less devastating to Native American peoples. Tribes were generally located to reservations on which they could more easily be separated from traditional life and pushed into US society. Some Southern states additionally enacted laws in the 19th century forbidding non-Indian settlement on Indian lands, intending to prevent sympathetic white missionaries from aiding the scattered Indian resistance.

On some occasions during the Indian Wars, which decimated the Native American population in the United States and are often collectively referred to as genocide[citation needed], entire villages were massacred by the U.S. Army (see for example Sand Creek Massacre and massacre at Wounded Knee).

It was our mandate to civilize the heathen and spread our effective system of government throughout the continent.
So, you now defend genocide. That doesn't surprise me. In any case, you aren't the only one who has a mandate to spread your ideology. It was the mandate of the Soviet Union to 'liberate' the workers worldwide - including the USA. Just like it is the mandate of Islamists to convert the world to the one true religion.

Not choosy in your company are you?

But why should we stop there? It was an extremely successful policy -- it now needs to be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general.
Don't you think you/we have fucked the Middle East up enough to warrant leaving it alone?

Of course, we'll create some reservations where Arabs can continue their backwards method of living, just like we did for the Indians.
You don't need to do do that. If you really want to commit genocide, just build some gas chambers. That way, to exterminate an entire people, you don't have to spend 100 years doing it.

Perhaps a little less invasions for oil and a decent foreign policy might be a slightly more humane way to raise standard of living than genocide, hmm? Oh, wait, you're only interested in the Standard of Life of the superior race. Let's fprget about that, then.

In the end, that will entail a higher quality of life for American settlers in the Middle East, which is a net benefit for the world in general.
How? Apart from the world war between America and Islam, and possibly the rest of the probably quite disgusted world, I can't see any benefit.

Now, I'm not advocating world domination -- just parts of Africa, Asia, South America, and possibly Antartica.
So, everywhere except Europe. That's pretty fucking close, don't you think?

Sure it is. It is also the responsibility of the free countries to spread their accomplished system of government to countries which are not free in an effort to increase their quality of life, as we have done in Iraq. Sure, there's a war going on, but they can vote! It's better than what Saddam was slaughtering and imprisoning people by the truckload.

No it isn't. Freedom is a sliding scale like most other concepts. For example, I live in Britain and am not free to own a handgun. Does that mean Britain isn't free? You balance freedom against control and stability.

Incidently, the Second Amendment doesn't really affect the armed forces, or the police, or the federal government, or anyone else who actually protects and serves america. The only people who would be harmed if the second amendment dissappeared tomorrow would be criminals, hunters, and those loons with an M16 in their closet in case the Russians invade.

Think about it - name a single case where a private gun owner, thanks to the second amendment, has been able to stop an act of terrorism

http://www.hrvc.net/imgs/grave.jpg
"to its former glory -- and beyond"

I guess I broke it, image no show up.
Fux.

That image is not from Iraq, but from Chechnya.

www.hrvc.net

All hail the great leader, so ably schooled in statecraft by his father, so noble and self-sacrificing, a rock and beacon for all his people.
Long live Kim Jong Il !! :D

I've always said they were both "Dear Leaders" with a brainwashed personality cult worshipping them as divinity and incapable of doing wrong. Denial's no longer a river or state, it's a continent.

And I'm willing to bet MTAE is yet another UN Abassadorship puppet trying to whore more attention by playing the uber-Bushevik. Let's move on folks.

How the hell do you know what Ben Franklin meant to say by that quote?

I'm going to just hazard a guess and suggest that Ben Franklin was not an imperialist and his quote was not made in a context used simply to justify invasion and occupation of foreign nations.

I don't know. Maybe you can provide historical evidence that shows Franklin's policies were actually similar to your own.

Can liberals read the minds of dead people, now?

Oh, I'm a liberal now?

I used it in the way he wanted it to be used

...oh, and you know how he wanted it to be used because you can read the minds of dead people? ;)

-- in a context where people should be willing to fight for freedom even if it costs them their security (American Revolution, anyone -- or do you think he was referring to wire-tapping?).

Oh ho, so the American Revolution is directly comparable with the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Interesting. Let me go bash myself in the head with a skull so I become stupid enough to agree with such an analogy.

We had a much more effective system of government. While the Iroquois had a primitive form of government, it was nowhere near as advanced as that of the Europeans. Their society was stagnating, and had been for thousands of years -- they were shockingly backwards technologically and medically, while the Europeans had mastered the effective allocation of resources. They easily defeated the Native Americans for that very reason -- they were much better than them in all respects. The Iroquois were weak and ineffectual -- theirs lands were not being effectively managed, and somebody needed to step in and do something. The Europeans were just what the doctor ordered.


Bloke called Adolf used similar reasoning when conquering Europe.


That's the price that you have to pay if you want to retain your former way of life. If you were miserable, in povery, and despairing before, going on a reservation isn't going to change that. If the Arabs want to hold on to their corrupt, horrible, maniacal, Islamo-fascist, etc., methods of governments, they can do so -- on a reservation.

But they weren't miserable, etc. They didn't particularly care about advanced technology - why would they? The population didn't put so much strain on the land that they needed to tear it up for resources.

Besides, what you are talking about is not destroying the governments - you're talking about destroying the governments, the culture, the history, the heritage and the freedom of millions of people


They had the choice to flee, but they chose not to take it, and the made the right choice.

Flee where? Besides, the issue isn't what they should've done, it's what the settlers should have done.

And I'm willing to bet MTAE is yet another UN Abassadorship puppet trying to whore more attention by playing the uber-Bushevik. Let's move on folks.

Wouldn't be surprised.

So, you now defend genocide. That doesn't surprise me. In any case, you aren't the only one who has a mandate to spread your ideology. It was the mandate of the Soviet Union to 'liberate' the workers worldwide - including the USA. Just like it is the mandate of Islamists to convert the world to the one true religion. Not choosy in your company are you?

Your comparison does not accurately portray the situation. There is a gaping chasm of a difference between the US and the Soviet Union and Islamo-fascists. As I previously stated, the Native Americans were woefully inadequate at constructing a viable and innovative society -- they were completely backwards technologically and socially. They grossly mismanaged almost every resource they had and failed to discover new ideas and tools. Thus, their society stagnated and needed to be replaced by a more versatile and flexible civilization (ie, of Europeans). The USSR and Islamo-fascists, on the other hand, completely destroyed the economic capacity of a country and lowered its standard of living -- as such, they are by no means comprable to the US.

You don't need to do do that. If you really want to commit genocide, just build some gas chambers. That way, to exterminate an entire people, you don't have to spend 100 years doing it.

I don't want to commit genocide -- I want to improve the quality of life worldwide. Arabs are equally intelligent as Europeans or Americans -- they have simply been subjected to horrible circumstances beyond their control, which have warped their civilization to something to be pitied. We need to rescue them from their folly by resurrecting the glory of their formed civilization through freedom, economic strength, and an increased quality of life.

So, everywhere except Europe. That's pretty fucking close, don't you think?

So Australia doesn't count? They're too backwards for you to even take into account? Damn you.

Oh, I'm a liberal now?

Busheviks overuse the word so much it has lost all meaning. To them, "liberal" is a swear word they use to denote anyone who doesn't parrot the Establishment line.

We had a much more effective system of government. While the Iroquois had a primitive form of government, it was nowhere near as advanced as that of the Europeans. Their society was stagnating, and had been for thousands of years -- they were shockingly backwards technologically and medically, while the Europeans had mastered the effective allocation of resources. They easily defeated the Native Americans for that very reason -- they were much better than them in all respects. The Iroquois were weak and ineffectual -- theirs lands were not being effectively managed, and somebody needed to step in and do something. The Europeans were just what the doctor ordered.
So fucking what? Genocide was OK because Europeans have superior 'resource allocation'. Man, you are sick.

That's the price that you have to pay if you want to retain your former way of life. If you were miserable, in povery, and despairing before, going on a reservation isn't going to change that. If the Arabs want to hold on to their corrupt, horrible, maniacal, Islamo-fascist, etc., methods of governments, they can do so -- on a reservation.
I'm just wondering what you would do if someone came to America and stuck, let's say 'white Christian heathens' like yourself on a reservation. How would you feel, just out of interest, to be pushed by foreign powers out of your home, and with no possesions, onto a reservation where nothing grows, and you can barely scratch a living.

Would you like that?

MTAE, can you please stop with the "Islamo-fascist" talk? Seriously, it's like discussing Christianity and then only talking about the KKK.

MTAE, can you please stop with the "Islamo-fascist" talk? Seriously, it's like discussing Christianity and then only talking about the KKK.

estimated time to being labelled "PC" T-minus 7 seconds...

I'm just wondering what you would do if someone came to America and stuck, let's say 'white Christian heathens' like yourself on a reservation. How would you feel, just out of interest, to be pushed by foreign powers out of your home, and with no possesions, onto a reservation where nothing grows, and you can barely scratch a living.

Would you like that?

According to his own logic, he would be fine with that if America became "more free" (by his definition) in the process and/or the invaders "used resources more effectively" (again by his definition).

Your comparison does not accurately portray the situation. There is a gaping chasm of a difference between the US and the Soviet Union and Islamo-fascists. As I previously stated, the Native Americans were woefully inadequate at constructing a viable and innovative society -- they were completely backwards technologically and socially. They grossly mismanaged almost every resource they had and failed to discover new ideas and tools. Thus, their society stagnated and needed to be replaced by a more versatile and flexible civilization (ie, of Europeans). The USSR and Islamo-fascists, on the other hand, completely destroyed the economic capacity of a country and lowered its standard of living -- as such, they are by no means comprable to the US.



I don't want to commit genocide -- I want to improve the quality of life worldwide. Arabs are equally intelligent as Europeans or Americans -- they have simply been subjected to horrible circumstances beyond their control, which have warped their civilization to something to be pitied. We need to rescue them from their folly by resurrecting the glory of their formed civilization through freedom, economic strength, and an increased quality of life.



So Australia doesn't count? They're too backwards for you to even take into account? Damn you.
Do you know anything about Native Americans? I'm interested in what research you've done. Books you've read. Articles. Or do you just divine things from what is left on the tissue paper after you've wiped your ass? I seriously think that this may be the case.

Bloke called Adolf used similar reasoning when conquering Europe.

Right, because the quality of life was so incredibly elevated in Nazi Germany that Adolf wished to spread that affluence to the rest of Europe. France might suck, but it's probably better to live there than in a concentration camp.

the history, the heritage and the freedom of millions of people

I should think that destroying history would be an incredibly complex task unless you build a time machine. However, I advocated no such thing, so I don't know from whence that comment came. Also, I want to spread freedom to those people -- not take it away. Nonetheless, an omelet cannot be made without breaking a few eggs. If it is necessary to kill a few staunch defenders of a corrupt regime to install a functional democracy, so be it.

Flee where?

There are numerous places where Iraqis could flee if they so desire. These include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Syria, Turkey, and Iran.

Your comparison does not accurately portray the situation. There is a gaping chasm of a difference between the US and the Soviet Union and Islamo-fascists.
No. Genocide is genocide, no matter how many niceties you think goes with it.

As I previously stated, the Native Americans were woefully inadequate at constructing a viable and innovative society -- they were completely backwards technologically and socially. They grossly mismanaged almost every resource they had and failed to discover new ideas and tools.
So they diserved to be exterminated?

Thus, their society stagnated and needed to be replaced by a more versatile and flexible civilization (ie, of Europeans).
No, it didn't. If anything, it stagnated (if at all) because of being driven off their own lands.

The USSR and Islamo-fascists, on the other hand, completely destroyed the economic capacity of a country and lowered its standard of living -- as such, they are by no means comprable to the US.
When did this happen, and I want long term economic data, and since when did this justify genocide?

I don't want to commit genocide -- I want to improve the quality of life worldwide. Arabs are equally intelligent as Europeans or Americans -- they have simply been subjected to horrible circumstances beyond their control, which have warped their civilization to something to be pitied. We need to rescue them from their folly by resurrecting the glory of their formed civilization through freedom, economic strength, and an increased quality of life.
By forcing them onto reservations, and settling the rest, as you advocated? No, that isn't going to make the world a better place at all.

So Australia doesn't count? They're too backwards for you to even take into account? Damn you.
Australia isn't a continent. So, just so you can be pedantic and feel good about yourself, I'll revise my earlier statement.

So, basically everything except Europe and Oceania.

France might suck, but it's probably better to live there than in a concentration camp.

Stop...please, just stop. You give Americans a bad name.

There are numerous places where Iraqis could flee if they so desire. These include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Syria, Turkey, and Iran.

So long as they don't get blown to smithereens on their way there, you mean.

According to his own logic, he would be fine with that if America became "more free" (by his definition) in the process and/or the invaders "used resources more effectively" (again by his definition).

I want it from his mouth. Or arse, where his BS most likely comes from.

So fucking what? Genocide was OK because Europeans have superior 'resource allocation'. Man, you are sick.

We established a better and more effective society, in perpetuity, for a very small price. It's a one-time down payment, after which the rewards can be reaped for hundreds of years. Who the hell cares about some people in the past if you have a glorious civilization now and in the future? If you like an omelet, you shouldn't be afraid to crack a few eggs. Guess what? I want a omelet.

Arrogance, aloofness and stupidity are very dangerous qualities to have in abundance in the most powerful man in the world.

You mean he isn't just manly and decisive? :D

Please stop feeding the UN Abassadorship. Thank you.

Right, because the quality of life was so incredibly elevated in Nazi Germany that Adolf wished to spread that affluence to the rest of Europe. France might suck, but it's probably better to live there than in a concentration camp.

At the time of the colonization, native americans were living and hunting perfectly happily in an sustainable, unspoiled, beautiful land. Europeans were living in towns with open sewers in the streets, and you had to throw your shit out the window to get rid of it.

Matter of fact, NA's lived longer than the average working class joe in Europe.

I want it from his mouth. Or arse, where his BS most likely comes from.

If the US was colonized by a country which had a significantly better economy and quality of life, I would be a staunch proponent of such action.

We established a better and more effective society, in perpetuity, for a very small price. It's a one-time down payment, after which the rewards can be reaped for hundreds of years. Who the hell cares about some people in the past if you have a glorious civilization now and in the future? If you like an omelet, you shouldn't be afraid to crack a few eggs. Guess what? I want a omelet.

What may be a "very small price" to some is a very big (and unacceptable) price to others.

I have never read Mein Kampf, but I'm sure if I did, I would find similar rhetoric to the things you post.

We established a better and more effective society, in perpetuity, for a very small price. It's a one-time down payment, after which the rewards can be reaped for hundreds of years. Who the hell cares about some people in the past if you have a glorious civilization now and in the future? If you like an omelet, you shouldn't be afraid to crack a few eggs. Guess what? I want a omelet.

You should stick to the kitchen, then. Get me a beer while you're at it. Shake that ass as you get it.

We established a better and more effective society, in perpetuity, for a very small price.
That price being people's lives.

It's a one-time down payment,
You didn't pay it. The indians did. To put it in terms perhaps understandable to your sick mind, it's like making Bosnia pay for Milošević's defense lawyer.

after which the rewards can be reaped for hundreds of years. Who the hell cares about some people in the past if you have a glorious civilization now and in the future?
Then I'm glad nobody exterminated your people in case things might be better off in a few years' time.

If you like an omelet, you shouldn't be afraid to crack a few eggs. Guess what? I want a omelet.
And you value human lives as much as eggs?

Matter of fact, NA's lived longer than the average working class joe in Europe.

I'd like to see the source to which that information is attributed. Please note that "your ass" is not a credible source. Also, please tell me when the Native Americans first acquired written language.

If the US was colonized by a country which had a significantly better economy and quality of life, I would be a staunch proponent of such action.

Even if it meant the wanton slaughter of your friends and families? My, what nice priorities you have. :rolleyes:

I have never read Mein Kampf, but I'm sure if I did, I would find similar rhetoric to the things you post.

Godwin would be so incredibly proud of you for that comment. In fact, Mein Kampf mostly dealt with other issues, including a burning hatred of Jews and a racist ideology.

If the US was colonized by a country which had a significantly better economy and quality of life, I would be a staunch proponent of such action.
And the, what was your term, Islamo-fascists would argue they would give you a better quality of life by forcing you to accept the one true god, living under the just Sharia Law etc.

Quality of Life can be a relative term.

comedy hour starring: meanstoanend. LOL

And you value human lives as much as eggs?

Apparently, you do not understand the concept of a metaphor. Let me put this in terms that you may understand. Are you justified in killing one person to save the lives of ten people? Are you justified in killing a million people to save (and improve) the lives of billions?

Godwin would be so incredibly proud of you for that comment. In fact, Mein Kampf mostly dealt with other issues, including a burning hatred of Jews and a racist ideology.

Just replace "Dem' Arabs" with Jews and I fail to see a difference.

I don't get it. People ignore my posts and let them die, but you all keep feeding the UN Abassadorship.

I don't get it. People ignore my posts and let them die, but you all keep feeding the UN Abassadorship.

I'm sorry. What did you say?

I don't get it. People ignore my posts and let them die, but you all keep feeding the UN Abassadorship.

You're just not as effective at trolling.

We established a better and more effective society, in perpetuity, for a very small price. It's a one-time down payment, after which the rewards can be reaped for hundreds of years. Who the hell cares about some people in the past if you have a glorious civilization now and in the future? If you like an omelet, you shouldn't be afraid to crack a few eggs. Guess what? I want a omelet.

Three things: First, who are you to say it's better? Better than what? Our society isn't going to keep running perpetually anyway. In the next century we're going to end up with serious resource shortages.

Second, I think you'll find that most of the people living in this grand better society are descendents of the white europeans who made that decision, not the NA's who had it forced upon them.

Third, if your argument is that we should build for future and not give a damn about the past, why not divert all health and charity resources into research? Sure, millions of people will die, because they can't get hold of the medicine we already have, but who cares! Brighter tomorrow!

Quality of Life can be a relative term.

Yet there are some criteria which everyone can agree on. Most quality of life surveys have very similar results. I mostly put my faith in that of The Economist.

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372495&d=2005

No Arab country is even in the top 40. Sad.

Apparently, you do not understand the concept of a metaphor.
Yes, I do. And I restated it, in fact.

Let me put this in terms that you may understand. Are you justified in killing one person to save the lives of ten people?
Depends. Such moral issues are not black and white.

Are you justified in killing a million people to save (and improve) the lives of billions?
No.

Third, if your argument is that we should build for future and not give a damn about the past, why not divert all health and charity resources into research? Sure, millions of people will die, because they can't get hold of the medicine we already have, but who cares! Brighter tomorrow!

Because that would drastically decrease the quality of life. A brighter tomorrow includes advanced medical technology to cure diseases and a system which allows the poor to lead a decent life. As such, we should continue to poor funding into health and charity as long as it doesn't significantly compromise other objectives.

Just replace "Dem' Arabs" with Jews and I fail to see a difference.

Same here, That wasn't a Godwin.

Yet there are some criteria which everyone can agree on. Most quality of life surveys have very similar results. I mostly put my faith in that of The Economist.

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372495&d=2005

No Arab country is even in the top 40. Sad.

So, you would advocate genocide in every country below the top 40, for the advancement of the superior race, yes?

I'd like to apologize, as an American, to every NON-American here. We all aren't this bad. Seriously. MeansToAnEnd has no empathy for other humans, no emotion, and is so stuck up in what he "knows" is right that he'll never change. I know this is the stereotypical image Americans have gotten since the Invasion of Iraq, but seriously, we're not like this. So please, don't let the troll ruin your image of our country.

I'd like to apologize, as an American, to every NON-American here. We all aren't this bad. Seriously. MeansToAnEnd has no empathy for other humans, no emotion, and is so stuck up in what he "knows" is right that he'll never change. I know this is the stereotypical image Americans have gotten since the Invasion of Iraq, but seriously, we're not like this. So please, don't let the troll ruin your image of our country.

Most europeans are aware that MTAE is a troll, but for some reason they can't stop feeding him. Look at this thread; 8 pages of grade "A" troll chow

I'd like to apologize, as an American, to every NON-American here. We all aren't this bad. Seriously. MeansToAnEnd has no empathy for other humans, no emotion, and is so stuck up in what he "knows" is right that he'll never change. I know this is the stereotypical image Americans have gotten since the Invasion of Iraq, but seriously, we're not like this. So please, don't let the troll ruin your image of our country.

I know, I've been to America only once, and all the people I met were good, friendly and likeable people (and even there, a guy from Minnesota told me not to judge American culture by Floridians), regardless of their politics.

But every country must have it's bad eggs - you have MTAE, we have Cliff Richard. Both spout a lot of bullshit.:D

So, you would advocate genocide in every country below the top 40, for the advancement of the superior race, yes?

No, only if there's a significant difference between the quality of life of the two countries. For example, #40 cannot invade #41. However, #3 can invade #100.

Most europeans are aware that MTAE is a troll, but for some reason they can't stop feeding him. Look at this thread; 8 pages of grade "A" troll chow

I know, It's funny. I did post a don't feed the troll sign, but it's so tempting. They eat out the palm of your hand!

No, only if there's a significant difference between the quality of life of the two countries. For example, #40 cannot invade #41. However, #3 can invade #100.

Well, Seig Heil, then. :headbang:

No, only if there's a significant difference between the quality of life of the two countries. For example, #40 cannot invade #41. However, #3 can invade #100.

Georgia...beware of Australia!:D

Well, Seig Heil, then. :headbang:

How are the ideas which I am advoacting even tangentially related to Nazi Germany?

I'd like to apologize, as an American, to every NON-American here. We all aren't this bad. Seriously. MeansToAnEnd has no empathy for other humans, no emotion, and is so stuck up in what he "knows" is right that he'll never change. I know this is the stereotypical image Americans have gotten since the Invasion of Iraq, but seriously, we're not like this. So please, don't let the troll ruin your image of our country.

I second this.

I second this.

Motion carried.

How are the ideas which I am advoacting even tangentially related to Nazi Germany?

You are advocating war for the sake of "civilizing those savages." This goes back to the old colonial attitude that empire "is the duty of the great white race," to "bring the light of christianity and civilization to the savages."

Your comparison does not accurately portray the situation. There is a gaping chasm of a difference between the US and the Soviet Union and Islamo-fascists. As I previously stated, the Native Americans were woefully inadequate at constructing a viable and innovative society -- they were completely backwards technologically and socially.

Let me guess, you think Europeans were the most innovative people ever to have existed? Well, some of the most important "achievements" of the Europeans were borrowed from other cultures. Medicine? Middle-eastern origins, my friend. Up until it was "borrowed", the common thought was that demons and such possessed people, for which Middle-easterners had vast knowledge otherwise(Much of which is still true today). Instead of "prayers" and such nonsense to cure illness, the Middle-easterners used Medicine and medical practices.

Mathematics? Mid-east again. More specifically, algebra, which had massive impacts on the very backwards Europe of the time.

Gunpowder-Asia. Before this, wars were fought with arrows and blades.

Astrolabe-Muslims. Without which, the Europeans never would have gotten anywhere.

Quite frankly, up until far after the Crusades, Europe was THE backwards continent of the world. By your logic, every other non-european nation had absolute right to destroy and conquer Europe. Oh, how foot-in-mouth syndrome is rampant these days.


They grossly mismanaged almost every resource they had and failed to discover new ideas and tools.

Dude... no. Just... no. They did not mismanage their resources at all. Europeans did. They used EVERYTHING in terms of their resources. Infact, they were far more efficient than the European colonists who came over, and nearly starved to death, if not actually starving to death, because they had no concept of efficiently using resources. Only through Native ingenuity did the settlers survive at all. And quite frankly, the idea they failed new discoveries of ideas and tools is grossly ignorant. They lived in a relatively(when compared to Europe) peaceful and prosperous area, and the scale of warfare was nowhere near that of Europe, they had no need for many advancements(of which war produces plenty).

Compare them to Europeans of the time, who didn't know their ass from their head when not being completely supported by the economy of their home country, they were FAR more advanced in terms of how they were able to adapt.


Thus, their society stagnated and needed to be replaced by a more versatile and flexible civilization (ie, of Europeans).

Versatile... yeah. Natives were able to remain stable and prosperous for tens of thousands of years, whereas the European nations constantly divided, joined, were conquered, divided once more. Most of the nations in Europe were only formed a few hundred years ago. Native societies have existed for far longer. The reason why they eventually fell was due largely to a misguided trust for early settlers, diseases(both accidently and intentionally spread), brutal destruction of their culture(Killing women and children comes to mind, and outright bans on anything to do with their culture), and forcing them to leave lands which were promised to them by the people who removed them from the land rather forcibly. Trail of Tears comes to mind as a particularily brutal, unjust, and outright terrible example.


I don't want to commit genocide -- I want to improve the quality of life worldwide.

By forcing what you see fit upon them? You are trying to justify GENOCIDE of the Native Americans. You are trying to justify the killing and deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Natives, all in the name of "Manifest Destiny", and bring "culture" to heathens? It was as senseless then as it is now. These words have been used to justify all Genocides, from the slaughter of every man, women, and child when Jerusalem was taken by the Europeans in the first crusades, to Hitler, to Stalin, to Hussein.


Arabs are equally intelligent as Europeans or Americans -- they have simply been subjected to horrible circumstances beyond their control, which have warped their civilization to something to be pitied.


First, I'd like you to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

Before you make any judgements based on culture.



We need to rescue them from their folly by resurrecting the glory of their formed civilization through freedom, economic strength, and an increased quality of life.

Rescue? By trying to destroy their culture(and in turn draining the blood by which their society thrives)? You know what, you are really starting to sound like some of the Genocidal maniacs of the past.

You are advocating war for the sake of "civilizing those savages." This goes back to the old colonial attitude that empire "is the duty of the great white race," to "bring the light of christianity and civilization to the savages."

Yes, I do want to improve the overall quality of life for the world. I am aware that many bleeding-heart liberals are too short-sighted to see the benefits of such a plan, but too bad. If we are able to create a better world, we shouldn't let reticence stop us from doing so. America has the power to vastly improve the standard of living of the world, and we must seize that opportunity while we still can. We must create a grander, better, world, regardless of the cost. The only thing which really matters, in the end, is how well-off we all are and how sustainable our model is. We need to acknowledge this and take steps to do something about it.

How are the ideas which I am advoacting even tangentially related to Nazi Germany?

Hitler advocated that the strength, prosperity, and power of Germany made them the nation to rule the world. In his mind, he had absolute right to rule. Quite frankly, at the time, Germany was far stronger than ANY nation in the world, including America. He felt that German culture was superior to all others, and wanted to spread German influence to the world.

Sound like anything someone, whom shall remain nameless, has said?

Stuff

If you love the Native Americans so much, go on a reservation. The fact of the matter is that Europeans were much better and much more successful than Native Americans. You might be satisfied with a stagnant society that produces nothing for thousands of years. I'm not. Hell, go to Zimbabwe if you want to see how life for the Native Americans was like.

Sound like anything someone, whom shall remain nameless, has said?

No. He had no facts with which to back up his assertions; the quality of life in Germany was dismally poor and political freedom didn't exist.

Yes, I do want to improve the overall quality of life for the world.
War and genocide don't improve the quality of life for the people involved. For example, being forced into one of your proposed reservations, for example.

I am aware that many bleeding-heart liberals are too short-sighted to see the benefits of such a plan, but too bad.
Ah, the usual 'Bleeding Heart Liberal" bullshit. Well, sir, I am a bleeding heart liberal. And proud of it. If it means I don't wank over the idea of exterminating the Untermenschen, so be it.

If we are able to create a better world, we shouldn't let reticence stop us from doing so. America has the power to vastly improve the standard of living of the world, and we must seize that opportunity while we still can.
Well, after all, Iraq is now such a great country to live in now it has been liberated and civilised..

We must create a grander, better, world, regardless of the cost. The only thing which really matters, in the end, is how well-off we all are and how sustainable our model is. We need to acknowledge this and take steps to do something about it.
The end justifies the means...some of the world's most evil atrocities have been committed with that in mind.

America has the power to vastly improve the standard of living of the world, and we must seize that opportunity while we still can.

We have no business imposing our way of life on anyone else.

The end justifies the means...some of the world's most evil atrocities have been committed with that in mind.

Some of the world's greatest atrocities were also committed with improving quality of life in mind, the holocaust for example.

If you love the Native Americans so much, go on a reservation. The fact of the matter is that Europeans were much better and much more successful than Native Americans. You might be satisfied with a stagnant society that produces nothing for thousands of years. I'm not. Hell, go to Zimbabwe if you want to see how life for the Native Americans was like.

Did you read a damn freakin' thing I said? Europe was not prosperous by their own means-almost every single important discovery was made elsewhere. They were not sucessful in the Americas because they required Native assistance, of which they were more than willing to give to the Europeans, and without which, the Europeans never would have survived in the Americas past the first few years.

And Zimbabwe is not a good example of what the Native Americans were like, you ignorant asshole. Much of Africa is a hellhole right now not because of their native tendencies, but DIRECTLY because of European imperialism and colonialism. You fail to realize this. Native Americans were doing perfectly fine-they had cities, they were well fed, they were prosperous. Only after the genocidal acts of the colonists and 19th century Americans did the Native people turn from once proud and great into a mere shadow of what they were.

And the reason why Reservations look so terrible-Natives were "given"(I.E. forced to live on) the worst, most unusable land to resettle on after their land(Much of the time land which the various European and American governments promised would remain Native) was quite literally stolen from them(Breaking of contracts by Europeans and Americans).

You are one deluded, ignorant prick.

And I am partial Native American, jackass.

Yes, I do want to improve the overall quality of life for the world. I am aware that many bleeding-heart liberals are too short-sighted to see the benefits of such a plan, but too bad.

Nice one with the "bleeding-heart liberals." I think if you just add "liberals" into every other post, you'll piss people off with idiocy alone, so just keep doing that.

If we are able to create a better world, we shouldn't let reticence stop us from doing so. America has the power to vastly improve the standard of living of the world, and we must seize that opportunity while we still can. We must create a grander, better, world, regardless of the cost. The only thing which really matters, in the end, is how well-off we all are and how sustainable our model is. We need to acknowledge this and take steps to do something about it.

Not bad at making a pseudo-fascist speech, but you're not roleplaying, you're not a politician, and so this kind of stuff is little more than filler as far as your trolling efforts go.

If you love the Native Americans so much, go on a reservation.

Kudos for a particularly racist-sounding statement. You'll get lots of angry responses from that.

The fact of the matter is that Europeans were much better and much more successful than Native Americans.

Cultural supremacism seems to be in. It's okay to flaunt one group of people superior to another, as long as you do it by "culture" instead of race. This is how statements like "white culture is superior to black culture" can be interpreted as non-racist (by racists, anyway).

It's pretty good at pissing people off too.

Overall, I'd say you're B+. Better than average at trolling, perhaps due to the skilled use of fillers between your more overt attempts to ellicit negative responses. But there are better trolls out there - more entertaining, more pertinent, more prolific. Sorry. :(

If you love the Native Americans so much, go on a reservation.
That's not the point, and you know it.

The fact of the matter is that Europeans were much better and much more successful than Native Americans. You might be satisfied with a stagnant society that produces nothing for thousands of years.
Which neither the Middle East and Native Americans are and were respectively.

I'm not. Hell, go to Zimbabwe if you want to see how life for the Native Americans was like.
You think Native Americans lived as Zimbabweans do now? Seriously, are you retarded or deliberately being thick?

No. He had no facts with which to back up his assertions; the quality of life in Germany was dismally poor and political freedom didn't exist.

Oh, ya know what, during the time that the Native American autrocities took place, quality of life dropped dismally, with massive starvation, suffering and death.

Perhaps if Germany had succeeded in the war, overall "quality of life" would have gotten better?

That's not the point, and you know it.


Which neither the Middle East and Native Americans are and were respectively.


You think Native Americans lived as Zimbabweans do now? Seriously, are you retarded or deliberately being thick?

Ya know what, I can tell right now he didn't read a word of my post. Not one. He made baseless, ignorant, and outright pointless statements, which only defames his character(which he has none whatsoever), and only shows his truly vile nature.

Yes, I do want to improve the overall quality of life for the world. I am aware that many bleeding-heart liberals are too short-sighted to see the benefits of such a plan, but too bad. If we are able to create a better world, we shouldn't let reticence stop us from doing so. America has the power to vastly improve the standard of living of the world, and we must seize that opportunity while we still can. We must create a grander, better, world, regardless of the cost. The only thing which really matters, in the end, is how well-off we all are and how sustainable our model is. We need to acknowledge this and take steps to do something about it.

Your rhetoric completely matches Adolf Hitler. Blame the left for the problems of the world, then let's go get ourselves some lebensraum.

If you love the Native Americans so much, go on a reservation. The fact of the matter is that Europeans were much better and much more successful than Native Americans. You might be satisfied with a stagnant society that produces nothing for thousands of years. I'm not. Hell, go to Zimbabwe if you want to see how life for the Native Americans was like.

I plan on going to a reservation, because I feel a duty to undue the destruction that people like you have ravaged on untold numbers of innoscents across the world. Does a society being stagnant and unconcerned for worldly wealth mean that is must be destroyed? I would certainly hope not. If stagnancy is the only consideration you hold to be bad, then lets have the ET come down and invade our stagnant society.

You keep reminding me of the lyrics of an Iron Maiden song, "Run to the Hills."

"White man came, across the sea; he brought us pain and misery; he killed our tribes, he killed our creed; he took our game, for his own need; we fought him hard, we fought him well; out on the plains, we gave him hell; but when it came, too much for Cree; oh will we ever be set free?"

Well, after all, Iraq is now such a great country to live in now it has been liberated and civilised.

Unfortunately, our goal in Iraq was not to re-colonize it with American settlers. We should have done the following. First, we should have told all Iraqis to leave Iraq, lest they be bombed into oblivion. Then, after a month to allow Iraqis to get their affairs into order, we would have proceeded with a military invasion of Iraq and the imprisonment of all remaining Iraqi anti-freedom fighters. Then, we would re-colonize the area with Americans, giving tax incentives for those who wish to come. After a while, we would allow former Iraqis into the prospering country. We could then repeat the process on other countries. Eventually, a large part of the world woud be occupied by America, and its quality of life would increase as a result, with a minimal death toll. It's a win-win situation -- the world will become a better place, and relatively few lives would be lost in the process.

Alougth i appauld and agree all of your arguments, i feel the need to point out the following;
1. The killing of Sunni religious leaders such as Abdul Aziz Al Badri the Imam of Dragh district mosque in Baghdad in 1969, Al Shaikh Nadhum Al Asi from Ubaid tribe in Northern Iraq, Al Shiakh Al Shahrazori, Al Shaikh Umar Shaqlawa, Al Shiakh Rami Al Kirkukly, Al Shiakh Mohamad Shafeeq Al Badri, Abdul Ghani Shindala.
2. The arrest of hundreds of Iraqi Islamic activists and the execution of five religious leaders in 1974.
3.The arrest of thousand of religious people who rose up against the regime and the killing of hundreds of them in the popular uprising of 1977 in which Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim the leader of SCIRI was sentenced to life imprisonment.
4. The arrest, torture and executions of tens of religious scholars and Islamic activists in such as Qasim Shubbar, Qasim Al Mubarqaa in 1979.
5. The arrest, torture and execution of Ayatollah Mohamad baqir Al Sadr and his sistre Amina Al Sadr (Bint Al Huda) in 1980.
6. The war against Iran in 1980 in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed, and many doubles of that number were handicapped or missed.
7. The arrest of 90 members of Al Hakim family and the execution of 16 members of that family in 1983 to put pressure on Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim to stop his struggle against Saddam's regime.
8. Using chemical weapons in the North and the South the details of which are below.
9. The occupation of Kuwait which resulted in killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and injuring many doubles of that number in addition to the destruction of Iraq.
10. The assassination of many opposition figures outside Iraq such Haj Sahal Al Salman in UAE in 1981, Sami Mahdi and Ni'ma Mohamad in Pakistan in 1987, Sayed Mahdi Al Hakim in Sudan in 1988, and Shaikh Talib Al Suhail in Lebanon in 1994.
11. The execution of 21 Bath Party leaders in 1979 in Iraq , the assassination of Hardan Al Tikriti former defence Minister in Kuwait in 1973, and the former Prime- Minister Abdul Razzaq Al naef in London 1978.
12. The millions of Shi'ites (did i spell that right?) you were oppressed, abused and the subject of brutal arrests and torures, the likes of which hasn't been scene since Mr. Hitler(the b******) and his SS troops in the second world war
However, i agree that Iraq has become a more volitile place, BUT i do not think that the number of deaths will ever escalate into what they were under Mr. Hussain(the b******)

Perhaps if Germany had succeeded in the war, overall "quality of life" would have gotten better?

Is this your true ideology coming to light? Do you believe that Hitler's actions were in the best interest of Germany and the world? Are you a proponent of authoritarian dictatorships which crush political dissent? That wouldn't surprise me, given that you advocate a regression of society into a primitive state, as exemplified by the Native Americans.

Is this your true ideology coming to light? Do you believe that Hitler's actions were in the best interest of Germany and the world? Are you a proponent of authoritarian dictatorships which crush political dissent? That wouldn't surprise me, given that you advocate a regression of society into a primitive state, as exemplified by the Native Americans.

Oh god, the hypocrisy.

Oh god, the hypocrisy.

Oh god, the blatant misunderstanding of trying to make a point on his part.

Unfortunately, our goal in Iraq was not to re-colonize it with American settlers. We should have done the following. First, we should have told all Iraqis to leave Iraq, lest they be bombed into oblivion. Then, after a month to allow Iraqis to get their affairs into order, we would have proceeded with a military invasion of Iraq and the imprisonment of all remaining Iraqi anti-freedom fighters. Then, we would re-colonize the area with Americans, giving tax incentives for those who wish to come. After a while, we would allow former Iraqis into the prospering country. We could then repeat the process on other countries. Eventually, a large part of the world woud be occupied by America, and its quality of life would increase as a result, with a minimal death toll. It's a win-win situation -- the world will become a better place, and relatively few lives would be lost in the process.

What if they don't want to leave? What if they all resist, peacefully. What will you do then? Kill them, Eintzgruppen style? Send them to concentration camps? Forcibly deport them from their own country?

You're a Nazi in everything but anti-semitism. Face it.

What if they all resist, peacefully.

If they resist peacefully we will peacefully deport them. However, if they use other methods of resistance, we must respond in a similar way. My objective is to make the world a better place -- that is completely unrelated to Hitler's goals.

Is this your true ideology coming to light? Do you believe that Hitler's actions were in the best interest of Germany and the world? Are you a proponent of authoritarian dictatorships which crush political dissent? That wouldn't surprise me, given that you advocate a regression of society into a primitive state, as exemplified by the Native Americans.

Wow... seriously, you just don't get the point of that statement at all. I'm not even going to dignify that stupidity with a response.

And I never once advocated "regression". I advocated against Genocide. Also, primitive is completely subjective. Natives were far more advanced than Europeans in some areas, and not so in others. There is no way of ranking cultures as being more civilized or more primitive. It is all completely subjective.

Unfortunately, our goal in Iraq was not to re-colonize it with American settlers. We should have done the following. First, we should have told all Iraqis to leave Iraq, lest they be bombed into oblivion. Then, after a month to allow Iraqis to get their affairs into order, we would have proceeded with a military invasion of Iraq and the imprisonment of all remaining Iraqi anti-freedom fighters. Then, we would re-colonize the area with Americans, giving tax incentives for those who wish to come. After a while, we would allow former Iraqis into the prospering country. We could then repeat the process on other countries. Eventually, a large part of the world woud be occupied by America, and its quality of life would increase as a result, with a minimal death toll. It's a win-win situation -- the world will become a better place, and relatively few lives would be lost in the process.It's funny how you have no respect for property rights, apart from your total lack of respect for human life. I would have assumed the former was more in line with your right-wing extremist viewpoint.

There is no way of ranking cultures as being more civilized or more primitive.

I have a pretty good way, actually. See, if the live in huts and have no medical or technological developments, they are not civilized. Simple.

If they resist peacefully we will peacefully deport them. However, if they use other methods of resistance, we must respond in a similar way. My objective is to make the world a better place -- that is completely unrelated to Hitler's goals.

...

Do you bleive this crap? You are suggesting deporting a massive amount of people from their historical and ancestral home, and to where?

You are basically suggesting a Trail of Tears...

Not beat the drum, but it also seems like what Hitler did in the very beginning of the war, "peaceful"(in the beginning it was not as violent as towards the end) deportation of Jewish peoples...

It's funny how you have no respect for property rights, apart from your total lack of respect for human life. I would have assumed the former was more in line with your right-wing extremist viewpoint.

My only objective is to improve the world. I will advocate almost anything necessary if it contributes to this goal, even if it requires such policies are disregarding property rights. As I said previously, it's a one-time thing -- after the original invasion, it will no longer be necessary.

"No Arab country is even in the top 40. Sad." Meanstoanend[I]

That may be true but [I]The Ecominist is a AMERICAN paper, so I think there may be a level of bias... By the way Bahrain has a brilliant quility of life (i've lived there 2000-2005) and the last time i checked, Bahrain was a ARAB country, therefore this, alougth this is only my opion, disproves your statement and i would ask you and The Ecomonist to go to the Countries in question before you pass judgement

I have a pretty good way, actually. See, if the live in huts and have no medical or technological developments, they are not civilized. Simple.

So basically, Europe, for the most of it's history was uncivilized?

So basically, people who live in sub-poverty in America are not civilized.

Basically, everyone is wrong but you.

Gotchya.

Not beat the drum, but it also seems like what Hitler did in the very beginning of the war, "peaceful"(in the beginning it was not as violent as towards the end) deportation of Jewish peoples...

He deported people based on religion and refused to allow them to "taint" the German people any further. I want to deport people based on nationality (as it relates to a failed government) and allow them back in as soon as their government has been replaced by a more functional one. We all know what happened in Iraq -- I do not need to see a sequel.

LOLZ! this just keeps getting better and better *finds candy and soda*

continue please

That may be true but The Ecominist is a AMERICAN paper

No, it's not.

By the way Bahrain has a brilliant quility of life

It clocks in at 62, above places like Jamaica.

If they resist peacefully we will peacefully deport them. However, if they use other methods of resistance, we must respond in a similar way. My objective is to make the world a better place -- that is completely unrelated to Hitler's goals.

You have no respect for other people or other cultures. You are in the same category as Hitler. Face it, you've gone Nazi.

He deported people based on religion and refused to allow them to "taint" the German people any further. I want to deport people based on nationality (as it relates to a failed government) and allow them back in as soon as their government has been replaced by a more functional one. We all know what happened in Iraq -- I do not need to see a sequel.

Saddam was basically placed into power by us, for our own reasons. His rise, and eventual despicable behavior, was not indictive of thier culture, but our influence.

Also, Hitler imprisoned and "deported" many of those whom disagreed with what he said, uprooting them and removing them from the only world they ever knew.

A more "functional" government is also very subjective. What works in one area will not work in another. Cultural beliefs differ, which in turn causing the various forms of government to prosper or fail.

He deported people based on religion and refused to allow them to "taint" the German people any further. I want to deport people based on nationality (as it relates to a failed government) and allow them back in as soon as their government has been replaced by a more functional one. We all know what happened in Iraq -- I do not need to see a sequel.

Funny how you violate everything that is held to be decent in this world with your advocacy, enough so that everyone comes to attack you.

Well, I'll think I'll leave you with your biships and your guilt. Till the next time, have a good sin.

Your comparison does not accurately portray the situation. There is a gaping chasm of a difference between the US and the Soviet Union and Islamo-fascists. As I previously stated, the Native Americans were woefully inadequate at constructing a viable and innovative society -- they were completely backwards technologically and socially. They grossly mismanaged almost every resource they had and failed to discover new ideas and tools. Thus, their society stagnated and needed to be replaced by a more versatile and flexible civilization (ie, of Europeans). The USSR and Islamo-fascists, on the other hand, completely destroyed the economic capacity of a country and lowered its standard of living -- as such, they are by no means comprable to the US.

You know nothing about history, do you? The native Americans did not misuse their resources. They did not have the reasources needed to make a civilization. There was no animal that could do the work of a horse, and no food in North America that could be preserved which made it impossible to save resources and transport them over distance. Two things necessary for civilization.

As for culture... Our culture has regressed tremendously over the last 200 years. You can see the last 100 years of it in our movies. We're raising generation after generation of aged adolesents. Among other things, it's producing people like you. The Native Americans had some very complex cultures. Only the Eskimos had a cultural set up like ours.

Once the Native Americans had access to things like wheat and horses, they quickly began to form a stratified, mulit-cultural society that strongly resembled those that arose in Europe. That's why there's a region in California called the "Inland Empire." That's where the Natives were making an empire. But we had such an advantage in terms of numbers and a big head start that we were still able to wipe them out.

Historians who study the period and compare their rate of development to Europeans say that there was one battle between the US and Mexico that if Mexico had one that battle the war would have lasted long enough so that the Inland Empire would have the time to become strong enough to remain an independent nation, even if not a threat to the US's security.

I don't want to commit genocide

You're just glad that it happens.

-- I want to improve the quality of life worldwide. Arabs are equally intelligent as Europeans or Americans -- they have simply been subjected to horrible circumstances beyond their control, which have warped their civilization to something to be pitied.

Horrible circumstances like decades of British and American interference in their politics.

We need to rescue them from their folly by resurrecting the glory of their formed civilization through freedom, economic strength, and an increased quality of life.

But that's not what we're doing. It's never what we've done. We're just sucking money out of there on our terms. If you believe otherwise, you're an idiot. We're creating their economic weakness, tyranny (like when we overthrew a democratic government in Iran to put it under a dictator), and decreased quality of life (getting blown up on the street tends to make for a bad time all around.)

To shed some light on this issue, if anyone is interested in reading the study that shows at least 650 000 Iraqis have died since the American invasion, here is the link to The Lancet medical journal.


http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694919/fulltext

You have to make an account to see the full article, but it only takes a couple of seconds.

Furthermore, the methodology used in the study is the same that is used for war-torn countries all around the world, and, contrary to Mr. Bush's comments, it is credible.

Furthermore, the methodology used in the study is the same that is used for war-torn countries all around the world, and, contrary to Mr. Bush's comments, it is credible.

Yeah, every single other study published, to this point, on the Iraq War is unreliable. They're right, and the dozens of other studies are flawed. It's just a coincedence that this study (like the last piece of false propaganda they produced, in 2004) came right before the election.

So basically, Europe, for the most of it's history was uncivilized?

Depends on how you look at it. Europe only became civilized within the last few thousand years, but it had people for thousands of years before that. On the other hand, it isn't usually considered to have "history" until people start writing it down. Before then it's pre-historic. The people there didn't start writing anything until the Romans took over, and most of what we consider to be their history is in fact the Roman history as it pertained to them.

So basically, people who live in sub-poverty in America are not civilized.

And an increasing number of those who live in super-wealth. ;)

Yeah, every single other study published, to this point, on the Iraq War is unreliable. They're right, and the dozens of other studies are flawed. It's just a coincedence that this study (like the last piece of false propaganda they produced, in 2004) came right before the election.

An arbitrary attack of character not on the statement itself, but on the person(in this case the people whom conducted the study) whom made the statement. This neither proves nor disproves anything. Try supporting your statements with facts for once.

Depends on how you look at it. Europe only became civilized within the last few thousand years, but it had people for thousands of years before that. On the other hand, it isn't usually considered to have "history" until people start writing it down. Before then it's pre-historic. The people there didn't start writing anything until the Romans took over, and most of what we consider to be their history is in fact the Roman history as it pertained to them.

I was going by MTAE's definition of "civilized" which was grossly inaccurate. So... yeah... meh.

And an increasing number of those who live in super-wealth. ;)

Gotchya;)

He deported people based on religion ... I want to deport people based on nationality

Actually, he deported people based on nationality. I.E, not being German enough.

So really, this weak argument of yours fails to distinguish you from Hitler - other than the minor detail that you're not in a position of power to enact what you advocate.

Actually, he deported people based on nationality. I.E, not being German enough.

What are you blabbering on about? Regardless of Hitler's ideas of ethnic purity, and the lack thereof he saw in Jews, most German Jews were indeed German citizens.

What are you blabbering on about? Regardless of Hitler's ideas of ethnic purity, and the lack thereof he saw in Jews, most German Jews were indeed German citizens.

And Jews weren't the only ones persecuted by Hitler. They were a majority, but there were many, many other "nationalities" that were deported.

It's no different than what you are suggesting-Deporting Iraqis because they do not fit under your idea of being a good "Iraqi" or whatever nonsense you are babbling about.

Even though I block him MeansToAnEnd is still my second favorite trolling idiot.

Even though I block him MeansToAnEnd is still my second favorite trolling idiot.

Sad thing is, he doesn't even seem to have a basic comprehension of history at all. Even most fundies aren't this completely ignorant the past.

What are you blabbering on about?

Good point - what am I doing, arguing with a troll? It's like masturbation, only less fun.

Regardless of Hitler's ideas of ethnic purity, and the lack thereof he saw in Jews, most German Jews were indeed German citizens.

[insert fallacious, tangential argument designed to prolong attention-seeking here]

Yeah, every single other study published, to this point, on the Iraq War is unreliable. They're right, and the dozens of other studies are flawed. It's just a coincedence that this study (like the last piece of false propaganda they produced, in 2004) came right before the election.

Isn't Bush the one who made the information public? I may be wrong about that but isn't that the case?

Sad thing is, he doesn't even seem to have a basic comprehension of history at all. Even most fundies aren't this completely ignorant the past.

Which historical fact have I mistaken, if that is the case?

Which historical fact have I mistaken, if that is the case?

most of it, if not all

Then we must thank God that we have a "partially retarded" leader who has taken great strides towards worldwide peace and democracy; a leader who has spurred our economy into growth and created a millions of jobs; a leader who is dedicated to our safety; a leader who does not want a single child or oppressed person to be left behind. A truly great leader.

USAbbasadorship, is that you?

I'm sorry just to put this so crudely, but...

MeansToAnEnd - you are stupid.

Thanks for your time, everyone.

The Iraqis are tolerating the violence quite well -- they are so incredibly dedicated to a peaceful, democratic, stable society that they are willing to risk their lives to achieve that noble goal. They have the resolve to refrain from fighting the fiendish terrorists who are wreaking havoc upon their country because they know doing so will only perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence. I applaud their steadfast determination, as well as our president's dauntlessness in the face of adversity. Here's to freedom and peace in Iraq!



So, what you're saying is that the way to win a War on Terror is to NOT fight it?


Interesting.


I presume then that you would agree - using your logic - that this makes the US response both totally incorrect and inevitably doomed to failure?

Try supporting your statements with facts for once.

You really do ask too much.

You really do ask too much.

Please stop trolling and allow this thread to perish. Thanks a bunch. :)

In reference to the OP, clearly it's time for a change in strategy in Iraq. If the quoted numbers are true-and it doesn't really matter anyway, as it's obvious to anyone that Iraq is a mess right now-than it's definetely time for the Iraqis to do the fighting for themselves. We've been there for more than three years now, we've built their army-300,000 strong, as well as their police force. Either way you cut it, it will be up to them to decide what type of government they get-liberal democray or sharia law islamofascism. This is true whether we stay there 1, 5, or even 10 years. An immediate withdrawal isn't what I'm looking for, but it's definetely time to begin some kind of limited withdrawal, and maintain bases in Kurdistan, which is stable right now, and a pro-American region.

Please stop trolling and allow this thread to perish. Thanks a bunch. :)

ROFLMAO

You telling me to stop trolling...

*dies*

What, MTAE, you get owned on every topic you bring up and then you want to cut and run?

Please stop trolling and allow this thread to perish. Thanks a bunch. :)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What, MTAE, you get owned on every topic you bring up and then you want to cut and run?

Conservatives only oppose cutting and running when it's other people who are in the line of fire.

Hypocritroll, a whole new flavor of troll, brought to you by:

Please stop trolling and allow this thread to perish. Thanks a bunch. :)

now theres a market idea

Has anyone ever noticed that MTAE makes threads with the same jist every 2-3 days, then once they get to around 10-15 pages he declares himself a winner and moves on to a new thread? Despite getting owned on every topic he brings up, he never loses the idea that he is right. Despite having absolutely no facts in his favor, and not even attempting to find facts, he continues to act as if he is the only person here above 3 years of age. He doesn't have staying power, either. Ever notice how on page 2-3 of this thread he was gloating over how Bush saved the American economy?

Has anyone ever noticed that MTAE makes threads with the same jist every 2-3 days, then once they get to around 10-15 pages he declares himself a winner and moves on to a new thread? Despite getting owned on every topic he brings up, he never loses the idea that he is right. Despite having absolutely no facts in his favor, and not even attempting to find facts, he continues to act as if he is the only person here above 3 years of age. He doesn't have staying power, either. Ever notice how on page 2-3 of this thread he was gloating over how Bush saved the American economy?

He did this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503183) yesterday.

A really unique thread as well, I might add, but at least it's at least not another thinly veiled "liberals hate America" joke.

What, MTAE, you get owned on every topic you bring up and then you want to cut and run?

I'm not getting owned. The same thing is getting repeated over and over again to the point of extreme boredom. I have not seen any strong argument opposed to my idea as of yet, except somebody who wants society to regress to the level of Native American civilization.

I'm not getting owned. The same thing is getting repeated over and over again to the point of extreme boredom. I have not seen any strong argument opposed to my idea as of yet, except somebody who wants society to regress to the level of Native American civilization.

So, if we don't go around putting Arabs on reservations and settling the middle east, the world will suddenly embrace Native American lifestyle, technology and culture?

I see.

I'm not getting owned. The same thing is getting repeated over and over again to the point of extreme boredom. I have not seen any strong argument opposed to my idea as of yet, except somebody who wants society to regress to the level of Native American civilization.

I'll have a go at giving an argument.

Have you ever heard of the island of Sark? It's the last feudal system in Europe, you can't own land on the island as it is all owned by the Seigneur who still pays and annual tax to the Queen of 1/20th of the Knights tax (he send her a cheque for £1.79 every year). There are lots of other archaic rules as well such as only the Seigneur can own unspayed bitches and all property must pass to the eldest son in the family upon the death of the parents. Motor vehicles are banned and every household must own a musket to defend the island in case the French decide to attack.

Now the people that live on Sark are generally happy, they pay far less tax than on mainland UK and the budget for the government of the whole island is around £800,000 annually. Now according to your ideas we should invade these people and replace their outdated government system with a nice shiney new democracy despite the fact that the EU has insisted that they do and they have resisted it for years, only agreeing this year to a more democratic system in order to prevent Westminister imposing an even more onerous system upon them.

Should we be forcing our way of life down the throats of these happy and properous people just because you think its better?

I'm not getting owned. The same thing is getting repeated over and over again to the point of extreme boredom. I have not seen any strong argument opposed to my idea as of yet, except somebody who wants society to regress to the level of Native American civilization.

Yes, yes you are getting owned. You got owned on Bush being a great leader. You got owned on Bush helping the economy. You got owned on everything you brought up.

Now you're getting owned on getting owned.

Try again.

Should we be forcing our way of life down the throats of these happy and properous people just because you think its better?

Money says that MTAE says those people don't count.

Money says that MTAE says those people don't count.

But these are white people. Surely he'll think their opinion matters?

Technically, Bush's invasion of Iraq has saved more lives. Remember the UN sanctions? 5,000 children under the age of five were dying per month. Right now, it's 3000 civilians, and chances are that number is inflated also.

But these are white people. Surely he'll think their opinion matters?

But you see, they have yet to build a supercomputer, so they are inferior and an embarassment to the human race. They should be made slaves for 10 generations in order to repay their debt to the progress of mankind.

Technically, Bush's invasion of Iraq has saved more lives. Remember the UN sanctions? 5,000 children under the age of five were dying per month. Right now, it's 3000 civilians, and chances are that number is inflated also.

So these figures weren't included in the baseline for calaulating the increases in the numbers of dead people in Iraq?

I think you might be mistaken on this one mate.

I'm not getting owned. The same thing is getting repeated over and over again to the point of extreme boredom. I have not seen any strong argument opposed to my idea as of yet, except somebody who wants society to regress to the level of Native American civilization.

You never addressed this:

The Iraqis are tolerating the violence quite well -- they are so incredibly dedicated to a peaceful, democratic, stable society that they are willing to risk their lives to achieve that noble goal. They have the resolve to refrain from fighting the fiendish terrorists who are wreaking havoc upon their country because they know doing so will only perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence. I applaud their steadfast determination, as well as our president's dauntlessness in the face of adversity. Here's to freedom and peace in Iraq!

Bullshit. If they're so "willing to risk their lives to achieve that noble goal", they would've deposed Saddam themselves, decades ago. Curb your jingoism.

So these figures weren't included in the baseline for calaulating the increases in the numbers of dead people in Iraq?

I think you might be mistaken on this one mate.

No, I'm saying before the invasion more people were dying, most of them children, than after the invasion. Even right now, at the height of sectarian violence, less people are being killed per month than children under the age of five, never mind everyone else.

You never addressed this:

You don't just depose a dictator overnight. Have you ever lived under a dictatorship? It's a life based on fear. It's easy for you to say they would have deposed a dictator if they had resolve, but that's simply not true.

In this case, you can't blame the Iraqis. However, they now have a democracy, institutions, and their own security force. Now, whatever happens to them is of their own making, for better or worse.

No, I'm saying before the invasion more people were dying, most of them children, than after the invasion. Even right now, at the height of sectarian violence, less people are being killed per month than children under the age of five, never mind everyone else.

And I'm saying you're wrong, the Lancet study established a baseline death rate that included everyone who died per month in Iraq under Saddam and then used it to find out how many more people are dying per month. the 600,000 figure included only the people who have died above and beyond the average monthly death toll under Saddam.

I don't know how to make it any clearer, the invasion has increased the number of people dying per month in Iraq.

You don't just depose a dictator overnight. Have you ever lived under a dictatorship? It's a life based on fear. It's easy for you to say they would have deposed a dictator if they had resolve, but that's simply not true.

In this case, you can't blame the Iraqis. However, they now have a democracy, institutions, and their own security force. Now, whatever happens to them is of their own making, for better or worse.

No, whatever happens to them happens due to your direct and indirect intereference. Trolls and their sidekicks get no wiggle room from this quarter. Don't go sloughing off your shortcomings onto their shoulders.

You don't just depose a dictator overnight. Have you ever lived under a dictatorship? It's a life based on fear.

See Also; America, United States of

Now, whatever happens to them is of their own making, for better or worse.

What about the Iranians coming across the border to fight because the "Iraqi security forces" would be easily defeated by the Los Angeles Police Department?

No, whatever happens to them happens due to your direct and indirect intereference. Trolls and their sidekicks get no wiggle room from this quarter. Don't go sloughing off your shortcomings onto their shoulders.

We made mistakes, but in the end it would be up to the Iraqis to take their own destiny, and that's true regardless of what we would have done, or do in the future.

Better to make your own destiny and get the government you truly deserve than be ruled by a brutal dictator, and have no hope for the future, IMO.

See Also; America, United States of



What about the Iranians coming across the border to fight because the "Iraqi security forces" would be easily defeated by the Los Angeles Police Department?

1) Clearly, you don't live, nor have ever been to America.

2) What about them? You want to bomb Iran? Based on what you said so far, I hardly think that's the case, and yet you bring this up as if you actually think something should be done about it.

We made mistakes, but in the end it would be up to the Iraqis to take their own destiny, and that's true regardless of what we would have done, or do in the future.

Better to make your own destiny and get the government you truly deserve than be ruled by a brutal dictator, and have no hope for the future, IMO.

But the Iraqi people never did take or make their own destiny - you did that for them. And before that, Saddam Hussein did that for them. And six months after you all pack up and go home, some powerful Imam will do that for them.

What hope for the future? The only hope there's ever been has been the hope of survival. I assume that's something that's been standing the average Iraqi in good stead these last few years. God knows they'll need more of it.

But the Iraqi people never did take or make their own destiny - you did that for them. And before that, Saddam Hussein did that for them. And six months after you all pack up and go home, some powerful Imam will do that for them.

What hope for the future? The only hope there's ever been has been the hope of survival. I assume that's something that's been standing the average Iraqi in good stead these last few years. God knows they'll need more of it.

I think it will be longer than 6 months. And we'll probably keep bases in Kurdistan.

We gave the Iraqis a chance. If they have more loyalty to their clans and sectarian militias, they are going to be worse off for it. If enough of them fight for democracy, maybe Iraq will join the peaceful brotherhood of nations some day.

I think it will be longer than 6 months. And we'll probably keep bases in Kurdistan.

We gave the Iraqis a chance. If they have more loyalty to their clans and sectarian militias, they are going to be worse off for it. If enough of them fight for democracy, maybe Iraq will join the peaceful brotherhood of nations some day.

And if the majority do want to stay loyal to their militias, what do you think Americas position should be?

NB still waiting for a response to this

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11812556&postcount=195