I'm sure this is buried somewhere in a thread from a few years back but knowing what we know now concerning Iraq, can you still make a rational argument for our invasion, especially one that takes into account the costs (and I don't mean just in $) said invasion has cost the U.S.? b,121b,121Here were are, debating over a $700B bailout and the Congress just approved that much in Iraq funding (with some post-Ike relief $ attached) the other day, without much of a whimper from anyone. b,121b,121This is not a perfect analogy but - to me - the question of future American military intervention is like this question around the bailout. Similar to not trusting the same people behind the financial crisis to be the first ones to benefit, financially, from taxpayer largesse, I don't think any nation that has displayed such incredibly poor judgment in how it's handled Iraq from start to finish deserves anything resembling "trust" when it comes to the saber-rattling that someone else might need to be dealt with. Your attempt at classifying the government of Iran as "terrorist" simply rings too close to the piles of bullshit rhetoric used to sell people on Iraq. You may actually be right but Bush/Cheney - whether you care to admit this or not - have done a hatchet job on the confidence of most Americans that they - or leaders like them - should be trusted with our lives and our resources.
b,121I'm sure this is buried somewhere in a thread from a few years back but knowing what we know now concerning Iraq, can you still make a rational argument for our invasion, especially one that takes into account the costs (and I don't mean just in $) said invasion has cost the U.S.?
b,121
b,121Here were are, debating over a $700B bailout and the Congress just approved that much in Iraq funding (with some post-Ike relief $ attached) the other day, without much of a whimper from anyone.
b,121
b,121This is not a perfect analogy but - to me - the question of future American military intervention is like this question around the bailout. Similar to not trusting the same people behind the financial crisis to be the first ones to benefit, financially, from taxpayer largesse, I don't think any nation that has displayed such incredibly poor judgment in how it's handled Iraq from start to finish deserves anything resembling "trust" when it comes to the saber-rattling that someone else might need to be dealt with. Your attempt at classifying the government of Iran as "terrorist" simply rings too close to the piles of bullshit rhetoric used to sell people on Iraq. You may actually be right but Bush/Cheney - whether you care to admit this or not - have done a hatchet job on the confidence of most Americans that they - or leaders like them - should be trusted with our lives and our resources.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Well first of all, my position on iran is now Obama's position. Second, no had i known what we know especially on the bailout question, i would not have supported invasion as a means of regime change. Though that said, it's good the president ignored democrats in 2007 and authorized the surge and Iran should concern the world and not just our country. And as for the bailout, I mean there is a lot of blame to go around. The way i see it is that it's republican fault because there was no regulatory oversight of the i banks and their financial products. But it's the fault of the democrats for legislating programs the required banks to make home loans to people who were not credit worthy. In both cases the intentions were great, but the application is this mess today. And i don't think the government is asking you to trust bush so much as the fed chair. The democrats on the hill want the bailout as much as the president.
Vitamin, I meant the banking industry, not regulators (which is a different story altogether).b,121b,121And I wasn't asking about Iraq in the context of the bailout, I was asking about Iraq on its own terms.
b,121and we destroyed their democracy in the 50s. we're JUST the people to come in and F*ck up their country, the region, and the world even more.
b,121
b,121the current regime there is horrible. so is ours. by voting Republican, you've empowered an insane tyrant to destroy hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani lives. Only because I'm polite did I keep reading your post after that initial admission. but yeah... you should be f*cking ashamed of yourself.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121First off, the clerics of Qom, or the predecessors to the clericy that runs Iraq today, supported the action against Mossedegh. Second, the followers of Mossedegh were the first people to be purged after the 1980 referendum on the Islamic Republic constitution. So the heirs of the president the CIA and the MI6 helped Shah Reza Pahlavi oust were killed, jailed and exiled by Khomeini's apparats. The closest surviving remnant of Mossedegh's movement has pleaded for some time for America to aid them in ridding Iran of their terrorist overlords. As it turns out the MEK or People's mujahadin sided with Saddam in the 1980s and are themselves terrorists. But nonetheless the heirs of the man who represented the democracy you say was pilfered wouldn't mind America re-intervening as it were. Also you presume that I favor an invasion of Iran or for that matter that anyone does. That's a strawman argument. My point is that I have no tolerance for people who excuse away Iranian aggression as a natural response to American aggression. There are plenty1of people who say this kind of nonsense, so you are not alone, but it is my wish, in my own small way, to make them feel timid and stupid when they say it.
b,121
b,121Now is Bush an insane tyrant? IF you believe that, then words really have no meaning for you. There is an election scheduled for November. There is a very good chance that the party, whose base stupidly demands show trials against the Bush-Cheney junta, will win control of the Justice Department. If we were living in a tyranny, there is no chance this would happen. I could go on. But you get the picture.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121As someone with a degree in history, I recognize very well what you're trying to do: bury the thrust of the argument under a tide of distracting Wikipediad details (and unjustified condescension). b,121b,121How does any of what you've posted explain away that we subverted democracy in Iran? Moreover, your stating that there's a direct connection between the current leadership of Iran and historic supporters of the subversion of democracy is telling: time and time again, the United States participates in "regime change," only to find that the newly instated "allies" transform themselves into something far worse, as power vacuums and/or puppet governments generally do.b,121b,121I don't argue that Iranian AGGRESSION is a product of American aggression. I argue that when a country that has nukes says to another country "we may invade you if you try to arm yourself with nukes" -- and the public gets caught up in this illogic -- lunacy prevails. The assumption is: we are sane, we are the good guys; they are crazy, they are the bad guys. Is it any surprise that most of the world currently sees us as "the bad guys?" Iran currently feels threatened, and is trying to arm themselves. Even if their leadership is reprehensible, that has no bearing on the fact that their response to bellicose neocon rhetoric is the way any nation would react when threatened. We maintain that our nuclear arsenal is for DEFENSIVE purposes (despite being the only country to have used bombs of that force); yet we make the assumption that any other nation (conveniently excepting Israel here) that does the same does so for purposes of aggression. b,121b,121Your literal response to the word tyrant -- ignoring the fact that the 2000 election was stolen and will likely be viewed by historians as a predmeditated coup, and that the 2004 election suffered from so much voter intimidation that so-called "Third World" nations have offered to observe our elections -- is convenient, but my point stands: in calling out Iran's leadership, you overlook the fact that our own leadership -- and, indeed, the current leadership of dozen of countries (CERTAINLY not excluding Israel and the Saudis) -- have committed horrendous atrocities which could just as easily be itemized. To do so for just one country is politically expedient perhaps, but to act on that one set of information would be short-sighted and disastrous, not to mention prejudiced and imperialist. b,121b,121To say you've voted Republican has a whole host of unfortunate associations that puts you on the wrong side of the (currently stalled) march of human progress; Hitler was elected, too, my dude, and the loss of sleep you should suffer, if not equal, should be in the same ballpark. And to vote Republican and express a supposed concern for feminism is beyond not a good look.
b,121and we destroyed their democracy in the 50s. we're JUST the people to come in and F*ck up their country, the region, and the world even more.
b,121
b,121the current regime there is horrible. so is ours. by voting Republican, you've empowered an insane tyrant to destroy hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani lives. Only because I'm polite did I keep reading your post after that initial admission. but yeah... you should be f*cking ashamed of yourself.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121First off, the clerics of Qom, or the predecessors to the clericy that runs Iraq today, supported the action against Mossedegh. Second, the followers of Mossedegh were the first people to be purged after the 1980 referendum on the Islamic Republic constitution. So the heirs of the president the CIA and the MI6 helped Shah Reza Pahlavi oust were killed, jailed and exiled by Khomeini's apparats. The closest surviving remnant of Mossedegh's movement has pleaded for some time for America to aid them in ridding Iran of their terrorist overlords. As it turns out the MEK or People's mujahadin sided with Saddam in the 1980s and are themselves terrorists. But nonetheless the heirs of the man who represented the democracy you say was pilfered wouldn't mind America re-intervening as it were. Also you presume that I favor an invasion of Iran or for that matter that anyone does. That's a strawman argument. My point is that I have no tolerance for people who excuse away Iranian aggression as a natural response to American aggression. There are plenty1of people who say this kind of nonsense, so you are not alone, but it is my wish, in my own small way, to make them feel timid and stupid when they say it.
b,121
b,121Now is Bush an insane tyrant? IF you believe that, then words really have no meaning for you. There is an election scheduled for November. There is a very good chance that the party, whose base stupidly demands show trials against the Bush-Cheney junta, will win control of the Justice Department. If we were living in a tyranny, there is no chance this would happen. I could go on. But you get the picture.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121As someone with a degree in history, I recognize very well what you're trying to do: bury the thrust of the argument under a tide of distracting Wikipediad details (and unjustified condescension).
b,121
b,121How does any of what you've posted explain away that we subverted democracy in Iran? Moreover, your stating that there's a direct connection between the current leadership of Iran and historic supporters of the subversion of democracy is telling: time and time again, the United States participates in "regime change," only to find that the newly instated "allies" transform themselves into something far worse, as power vacuums and/or puppet governments generally do.
b,121
b,121I don't argue that Iranian AGGRESSION is a product of American aggression. I argue that when a country that has nukes says to another country "we may invade you if you try to arm yourself with nukes" -- and the public gets caught up in this illogic -- lunacy prevails. The assumption is: we are sane, we are the good guys; they are crazy, they are the bad guys. Is it any surprise that most of the world currently sees us as "the bad guys?" Iran currently feels threatened, and is trying to arm themselves. Even if their leadership is reprehensible, that has no bearing on the fact that their response to bellicose neocon rhetoric is the way any nation would react when threatened. We maintain that our nuclear arsenal is for DEFENSIVE purposes (despite being the only country to have used bombs of that force); yet we make the assumption that any other nation (conveniently excepting Israel here) that does the same does so for purposes of aggression.
b,121
b,121Your literal response to the word tyrant -- ignoring the fact that the 2000 election was stolen and will likely be viewed by historians as a predmeditated coup, and that the 2004 election suffered from so much voter intimidation that so-called "Third World" nations have offered to observe our elections -- is convenient, but my point stands: in calling out Iran's leadership, you overlook the fact that our own leadership -- and, indeed, the current leadership of dozen of countries (CERTAINLY not excluding Israel and the Saudis) -- have committed horrendous atrocities which could just as easily be itemized. To do so for just one country is politically expedient perhaps, but to act on that one set of information would be short-sighted and disastrous, not to mention prejudiced and imperialist.
b,121
b,121To say you've voted Republican has a whole host of unfortunate associations that puts you on the wrong side of the (currently stalled) march of human progress; Hitler was elected, too, my dude, and the loss of sleep you should suffer, if not equal, should be in the same ballpark. And to vote Republican and express a supposed concern for feminism is beyond not a good look.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121b,121The problem here is than Vitamin really believes a lot of the insane shit that the neo-cons have advocated for, and done over the years, was right. Unfortunately folks like him and the people he looks up to have moved the dividing line between what's basically right and wrong in politics and international relations so far, that he can call holding Bush administration officials accountable for their wrongdoing a "show trial", and he can do it with a straight face.b,121The movement of that same line is what allows folks on the right to go around calling Barack Obama a standard bearer of the left. He's a centrist and a consensus builder. This is a problem for the people currently in charge because they aren't interested in consensus, with the exception of one built in their very small and insulated circle.b,121Bush is a tool of these people, and McCain will be as well.
b,121The problem here is than Vitamin really believes a lot of the insane shit that the neo-cons have advocated for, and done over the years, was right. Unfortunately folks like him and the people he looks up to have moved the dividing line between what's basically right and wrong in politics and international relations so far, that he can call holding Bush administration officials accountable for their wrongdoing a "show trial", and he can do it with a straight face.
b,121
b,121The movement of that same line is what allows folks on the right to go around calling Barack Obama a standard bearer of the left. He's a centrist and a consensus builder. This is a problem for the people currently in charge because they aren't interested in consensus, with the exception of one built in their very small and insulated circle.
b,121
b,121Bush is a tool of these people, and McCain will be as well.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121 img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/word3rp.gif" alt="" /1
b,121and we destroyed their democracy in the 50s. we're JUST the people to come in and F*ck up their country, the region, and the world even more.
b,121
b,121the current regime there is horrible. so is ours. by voting Republican, you've empowered an insane tyrant to destroy hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani lives. Only because I'm polite did I keep reading your post after that initial admission. but yeah... you should be f*cking ashamed of yourself.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121First off, the clerics of Qom, or the predecessors to the clericy that runs Iraq today, supported the action against Mossedegh. Second, the followers of Mossedegh were the first people to be purged after the 1980 referendum on the Islamic Republic constitution. So the heirs of the president the CIA and the MI6 helped Shah Reza Pahlavi oust were killed, jailed and exiled by Khomeini's apparats. The closest surviving remnant of Mossedegh's movement has pleaded for some time for America to aid them in ridding Iran of their terrorist overlords. As it turns out the MEK or People's mujahadin sided with Saddam in the 1980s and are themselves terrorists. But nonetheless the heirs of the man who represented the democracy you say was pilfered wouldn't mind America re-intervening as it were. Also you presume that I favor an invasion of Iran or for that matter that anyone does. That's a strawman argument. My point is that I have no tolerance for people who excuse away Iranian aggression as a natural response to American aggression. There are plenty1of people who say this kind of nonsense, so you are not alone, but it is my wish, in my own small way, to make them feel timid and stupid when they say it.
b,121
b,121Now is Bush an insane tyrant? IF you believe that, then words really have no meaning for you. There is an election scheduled for November. There is a very good chance that the party, whose base stupidly demands show trials against the Bush-Cheney junta, will win control of the Justice Department. If we were living in a tyranny, there is no chance this would happen. I could go on. But you get the picture.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121As someone with a degree in history, I recognize very well what you're trying to do: bury the thrust of the argument under a tide of distracting Wikipediad details (and unjustified condescension).
b,121
b,121How does any of what you've posted explain away that we subverted democracy in Iran? Moreover, your stating that there's a direct connection between the current leadership of Iran and historic supporters of the subversion of democracy is telling: time and time again, the United States participates in "regime change," only to find that the newly instated "allies" transform themselves into something far worse, as power vacuums and/or puppet governments generally do.
b,121
b,121I don't argue that Iranian AGGRESSION is a product of American aggression. I argue that when a country that has nukes says to another country "we may invade you if you try to arm yourself with nukes" -- and the public gets caught up in this illogic -- lunacy prevails. The assumption is: we are sane, we are the good guys; they are crazy, they are the bad guys. Is it any surprise that most of the world currently sees us as "the bad guys?" Iran currently feels threatened, and is trying to arm themselves. Even if their leadership is reprehensible, that has no bearing on the fact that their response to bellicose neocon rhetoric is the way any nation would react when threatened. We maintain that our nuclear arsenal is for DEFENSIVE purposes (despite being the only country to have used bombs of that force); yet we make the assumption that any other nation (conveniently excepting Israel here) that does the same does so for purposes of aggression.
b,121
b,121Your literal response to the word tyrant -- ignoring the fact that the 2000 election was stolen and will likely be viewed by historians as a predmeditated coup, and that the 2004 election suffered from so much voter intimidation that so-called "Third World" nations have offered to observe our elections -- is convenient, but my point stands: in calling out Iran's leadership, you overlook the fact that our own leadership -- and, indeed, the current leadership of dozen of countries (CERTAINLY not excluding Israel and the Saudis) -- have committed horrendous atrocities which could just as easily be itemized. To do so for just one country is politically expedient perhaps, but to act on that one set of information would be short-sighted and disastrous, not to mention prejudiced and imperialist.
b,121
b,121To say you've voted Republican has a whole host of unfortunate associations that puts you on the wrong side of the (currently stalled) march of human progress; Hitler was elected, too, my dude, and the loss of sleep you should suffer, if not equal, should be in the same ballpark. And to vote Republican and express a supposed concern for feminism is beyond not a good look.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121b,121Okay, you are a nonsense person. Bush and hitler are pretty1much the same, the 2000 election was stolen. Yes we've all heard this before. You don't really know anything about Iran. And you are arguing that Iranian behavior is both the equivalent of American behavior and somehow also understandable or provoked by American behavior. Newsflash genius--no one has threatened to invade Iran. Listen, I have no patience for rubes like you. You are soft on war crimes.
b,121Even as a 9/11 believer, what's more important to our safety? Securing our home so that something as negligent on the part of our military never happens again the way it did on 9/11? Or exacting revenge halway around the world on boogiemen that our own intelligence agancies created?
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Look, I'm down with the we-supported-and-emboldened-the-Mujahideen/Saddam/Taliban/etc.-and-we-have-ourselves-to-blame angle. The lesson that we need to learn is not to undergird anymore of these groups that we might have to engage in the future. But these institutions are not mere bogeymen (and that would stand to undermine your argument). Then again, I believe that terrorists attacked us on the 11th. I'm additionally opposed to our current government's fear-mongering.b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121What the F*ck is either candidate telling us that speaks to our security?
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121What are your criteria for appropriate "security?"b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121They both just want to increase the number of people around the world who might wish to harm us with their idiotic cowboy missions.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Come on. Really? I think that it's plain that Obama and McCain are not the same animal. Did you watch the debate?b,121b,121/font1
b,121E**, defend Palin as Leader of the Free World. I dare you.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121You weren't listening. Palin only needs to appoint Republicans to key offices in the gov't and she will have served her presidential purpose img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /1b,121b,121Onetet: as a student of history, you really should know better than throw out "Hitler" as a comparison for anyone save for Hitler. And maybe Stalin. But that's about it. Bush, loathsome as he is, isn't Hitler. And the list of American atrocities may very well be considerable but it's a stretch to compare the two societies as somehow equivalent. b,121b,121On the bright side, we've gotten Godwin's Law out of way.b,121b,121Vitamin: I can't tell if your "soft on war crimes" was meant as a joke but if it wasn't, that was a lame comeback.
I must note: it's refreshing that E** brings a brain to the table; a spirited debate is nothing without commensurate content to give it depth. Additionally, though our worldviews are misalligned, I have no doubt of his sincerity.
b,121I don't argue that Iranian AGGRESSION is a product of American aggression. I argue that when a country that has nukes says to another country "we may invade you if you try to arm yourself with nukes" -- and the public gets caught up in this illogic -- lunacy prevails. The assumption is: we are sane, we are the good guys; they are crazy, they are the bad guys. Is it any surprise that most of the world currently sees us as "the bad guys?" Iran currently feels threatened, and is trying to arm themselves. Even if their leadership is reprehensible, that has no bearing on the fact that their response to bellicose neocon rhetoric is the way any nation would react when threatened. We maintain that our nuclear arsenal is for DEFENSIVE purposes (despite being the only country to have used bombs of that force); yet we make the assumption that any other nation (conveniently excepting Israel here) that does the same does so for purposes of aggression.
b,121
b,121To say you've voted Republican has a whole host of unfortunate associations that puts you on the wrong side of the (currently stalled) march of human progress; Hitler was elected, too, my dude, and the loss of sleep you should suffer, if not equal, should be in the same ballpark. And to vote Republican and express a supposed concern for feminism is beyond not a good look.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121b,121some good points.b,121b,121i can only stress that the rest of the world sees you as the bad guys. i'm not kidding. even most europeans think america is the most dangerous country in the world right now.
thanks luck. that's very cool of you to say. I like being back here. I am even exercising to the king most mix, though there is a rap track on there which is almost as scandalous as Bush brought down the towers. I like the mix though. Is there a McCain mix? If there is a McCain mix I hope it has Jodeci on it.
b,121 even most europeans think america is the most dangerous country in the world right now.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121come on, dude.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121b,121it's true. i'm just telling you what i experience when i talk younger friends or german folks with a different heritage. i've been to the US and tend to calm down people getting excited about big bad America, but I'm not always feeling confident to do so. i'm concerned too.
b,121i can only stress that the rest of the world sees you as the bad guys. i'm not kidding. even most europeans think america is the most dangerous country in the world right now.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Errrh...img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/NO.gif" alt="" /1b,121Please stop throwing around ridiculous blanket statements like the above, Grope.b,121You don't know what you're talking about.
b,121i can only stress that the rest of the world sees you as the bad guys. i'm not kidding. even most europeans think america is the most dangerous country in the world right now.
b,121Please stop throwing around ridiculous blanket statements like the above, Grope.
b,121You don't know what you're talking about.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121b,121 img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/f-u.gif" alt="" /1b,121b,121b,121really, if you think my statement sucks... yours isn't any better, holmes.
b,121i can only stress that the rest of the world sees you as the bad guys. i'm not kidding. even most europeans think america is the most dangerous country in the world right now.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Do you mean:b,121b,1211) "most dangerous" as in "if you visit America, you might get robbed and left bleeding in a ditch somewhere"?b,121b,121or b,121b,1212) "most dangerous" as in "those crazy ass Americans are willing to F*ck over the rest of the world (militarily, economically, culturally) just to get their way"?b,121b,121b,121#1 makes no sense. #2 makes total sense.
Random question but somehow seems apropos for this thread:b,121b,121America's deficit is made possible by trillions of dollars borrowed from foreign entities, especially China. What does that mean as strategic liability to American interests to have a massive deficit funded through a global network of lenders?
b,121 even most europeans think america is the most dangerous country in the world right now.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121come on, dude.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121
b,121it's true. i'm just telling you what i experience when i talk younger friends or german folks with a different heritage. i've been to the US and tend to calm down people getting excited about big bad America, but I'm not always feeling confident to do so. i'm concerned too.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Who Cares? Seriously. I am by no means provincial. I have lived in Egypt and been to all of the axis of evil countries. I also go to Europe and run into this sort of thing all the time as well. They said the same thing about Reagan. Who cares? b,121b,1211) The American military is the guarantor of free trade in the world today. Europe has benefited from this and it's doubtful that trans-Atlantic relations will change all that much because Germans and Frenchmen believe Grishamesque stories about the Bush administration. b,121b,1212) The Europeans have been able to invest most of their GDP in non-military priorities because of the NATO alliance which kept them safe for the cold war and is now a great bulwark against the Russians. I grant that the socialist youth of the continent are angry and pissed off, but I doubt the alliances will change all that much. b,121b,1213) Much as the European masses like to praise the UN, who has historically provided the UN with its logistical and military capacity? America, that's who. When there is a flood in India and the world wants to get its tents and water kits to the disaster area, who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters? No the US military. b,121b,121I don't understand why the Europeans don't just make a holiday called Thanks to America day. They could commemorate how America saved their ass from the Nazis, rebuilt the continent following the war and then saved their ass from the commies and today is saving their ass from the Islamic Supremacists. b,121b,121Finally if America is so despised in the world, why do so many non-Americans want to come here and become Americans?
b,121Finally if America is so despised in the world, why do so many non-Americans want to come here and become Americans?
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Pity we don't have a "hegemony" graemlin. b,121b,121img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /1b,121b,121For real: I'm not sure about the logic there. You can despise a lot about any place and still find it compelling enough to live there. Say...Los Angeles?
b,121really, if you think my statement sucks... yours isn't any better, holmes.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Relax with the middle finger graemlin, Jan. You're not 15 years old.b,121b,121I thought you were more intelligent than this. Aren't you a university student? b,121How can you use phrases like "the rest of the world" and "most europeans" with a straight face in a (supposedly) serious discussion?b,121What are your (pretty bold) bold conclusions based on? Your conversations with "younger friends or german folks with a different heritage"? Sorry, but that's real vague and a far cry from being conclusive. You don't represent every person on the European continent or the rest of the world for that matter.b,121b,121Yeah, sure when I look around my own country, tapping into the media, talking to friends, family and random encounters, there are people with an anti-american stance. And yeah, sure, their numbers have risen in the last 5 or so years. But there are just as many with a pro-american, neutral or just-don't-give-a-fi1[/i]uck-about-it stance. I won't even get into what the rest of the world thinks, because I just don't know. And neither do you, unless you're some kind of omniscient deity.b,121b,121And anyway, what's the point of bringing a claim like that to the table? It's just senseless mudslinging that results in polarization and drags down the general discussion.b,121b,121By huffing and puffing and claiming to represent the views of the whole world, you're putting yourself in the same category as people who use the "axis of evil/if you're not with us you're against us" rethoric. Can't you hear how ridiculous that sounds?b,121b,121img src="http://www.phobospeepl.dk/images/animated_gifs/twinfight.gif"1b,121We're grown men, not kiddies in a sandbox.
b,121By the way, if I can add: E*i seems a lot angrier than what I remember. That's not a bad thing. Just interesting.
b,121
b,121Sup dude!
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121b,121It's because he realizes that he's witnessing the collapse of all he holds dear. The hegemony graemlin will soon be obsolete. The right gambled on an unstable standard bearer and they see their twilight approaching.b,121E*i can stick around and turn out the lights.
Comments