"Babs" needs to shut up~!

Lacmeh · Oct 4, 2002

You don´t get it do you?
America claims do defend human rights and freedom. AND SIDES WITH DICTATORS WHO USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN WAR AND ON HIS OWN PEOPLE.
Great show of supporting freedom and human rights all over the world.
America supports nothing but its own interests. When America says, we defend human rights and freedom, it should mean we defend human rights and freedom for America and nobody else.

Then when pointing out the fact, that the least thing, that America does is defending human rights and freedom for everyone on this world, the same one is suddenly anti American, hating america and generally an enemy.

Morat · Oct 4, 2002

No, he wasnt our enemy then. We play other countries when it suits us, but we dont side with our enemies in order to make the president look bad, simply for political gain

  Hmm. So is Bush being treasonous by trying to start a war so that the focus is on Iraq and not the economy?

   Because, frankly, I've got more evidence of that than you do that was the goal of those congressmen.

   Has it ever occured to you, Souljah, that they might have been telling the simple truth? That Saddam doesn't have the weapons the White House claims they do? The claims that the White House, remember, can't actually back up?

   Or maybe that they are simple very interested in finding a non-violent solution? You know, diplomacy?

   So it's treason and only for political gain to avert war? You're a little messed up in the head there, Souljah.

   I thought you Christians were big on "not killing people".

 

 

Chris†opher Paul · Oct 4, 2002

Originally posted by Lacmeh
You don´t get it do you?
America claims do defend human rights and freedom. AND SIDES WITH DICTATORS WHO USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN WAR AND ON HIS OWN PEOPLE.
Great show of supporting freedom and human rights all over the world.
America supports nothing but its own interests. When America says, we defend human rights and freedom, it should mean we defend human rights and freedom for America and nobody else.

Then when pointing out the fact, that the least thing, that America does is defending human rights and freedom for everyone on this world, the same one is suddenly anti American, hating america and generally an enemy.

Welcome to the reality of world politics.  We arent perfect, just better than the rest on issues of human rights, etc.

Chris†opher Paul · Oct 4, 2002

Has it ever occured to you, Souljah, that they might have been telling the simple truth?

How bout you? You think Bush could honestly want to save your stinkin hide?

You're a little messed up in the head there, Souljah.

I thought you Christians were big on "not killing people".

I don't want the war. The reality is that sometimes you dont have a choice, and you got to fight.

Starscream · Oct 4, 2002

I don't want the war. The reality is that sometimes you dont have a choice, and you got to fight.

And these congressmen are traitors for trying to avert war?  Remember s0uljah that your precious Vatican also wants to avoid war.

Man, talk about doublespeak.  Bush Sr. can sell weapons to our enemies, Bush Jr. can play the middle east like a fiddle when it serves our interest - but avoiding war - that's treason!

This part is especially ironic:

No, I think they want to secure their political power by making sure that Bush doesnt get re-elected.

And siding with the enemy as you have accused them aids this purpose in what manner?  Iraqi's don't get to vote.

Wars have a nasty habit of helping the President to stay President.

Really?  Well ain't that something!  Maybe the President can use such knowledge to his advantage?!

We arent perfect, just better than the rest on issues of human rights, etc.

Riiiight...which is exactly why you think war in necessary - despite what the Vatican thinks, despite what many Republicans think, and despite what Congress thinks.

But then again, we're just a bunch of freaking traitors.

Chris†opher Paul · Oct 4, 2002

but avoiding war - that's treason!

No, selling out the US to our enemy for political gain is treason.

we're just a bunch of freaking traitors.

Or cowards? *shrug*

Starscream · Oct 4, 2002

No, selling out the US to our enemy for political gain is treason.

1)  How did they sell out?

2)  Does Collin Powell sell out every time he visits the Middle East?

3)  How does "siding" with Iraq help them Politically?  Again, Iraqi's don't vote.

4)  How can you accuse them of seeking political gain and not Bush?  You just said that wars keep the President in power - and here we are with Bush trying to sell war to everyone.

5)  Why did you ignore any points relating to U.S. leaders selling arms to our enemies?

Or cowards?

Yeah, which is why you can find all those posts from me from a year ago saying that we need to pull our troops out of Afghanistan. 

Be very careful, s0uljah.  You are making a complete fool of yourself.

It is not by cowardice that I wish to avoid our troops being put in harms way.  It is not by cowardice that I want to avoid the deaths of untold civilians in our need to be at war - with someone.

It is by human rights that I form my decisions - a topic that you claim to have supiority over me.

Just how much bravery does it take for a man in the U.S. to approve of war over there?  How much bravery does it take to shrug off the collateral damage that comes with any war? 

Why do I doubt that you will be one of the troops putting your self in harms well?

Chris†opher Paul · Oct 4, 2002

How did they sell out?

As I originally said, they exposed our "cards" to the enemy. Saddam isn't going to take our threats seriously now, cause he sees the division first hand.

You know what that means? We HAVE to go to war now...kinda backfired, huh?

How does "siding" with Iraq help them Politically?  Again, Iraqi's don't vote

If the Prez doesnt get re-elected, then they benefit, being democrats.  The war will help Bush get re-elected (as a side-effect) and thus, they dont want it.

Morat · Oct 4, 2002

How bout you? You think Bush could honestly want to save your stinkin hide?

   Possibly. But this is important to note, Souljah: I didn't accuse him of treason.

   See the difference? Do ya? You accused the Congressmen of treason, and you can't seem to point to an actual treasonous act. Only make unsupported slurs about their supposed 'agenda' that, even if true, isn't treasonous.

   Whereas I merely pointed out that, by your standard, you'd have to accept me calling our President a traitor.

I don't want the war. The reality is that sometimes you dont have a choice, and you got to fight.

  Then why do you accuse those of trying to stop it "Traitors"?

As I originally said, they exposed our "cards" to the enemy. Saddam isn't going to take our threats seriously now, cause he sees the division first hand.

  What? He doesn't watch CNN?

You know what that means? We HAVE to go to war now...kinda backfired, huh?

   *snort*. Yeah. Because Saddam doesn't watch CNN. Oh, I know! He doesn't speak English, and no one he knows speaks English, so he can't know what's going on in the US without being told by Congressmen!.

If the Prez doesnt get re-elected, then they benefit, being democrats.  The war will help Bush get re-elected (as a side-effect) and thus, they dont want it.

  Double-standard. Either this war helping Bush get elected is a 'benefit', or costing the President is a 'side-effect'.

 

Chris†opher Paul · Oct 4, 2002

Watching opinions on CNN (of which there is 99% of the time division) is NOT the same as the unprecedented act of going over there and give Bush the big birdie.

And yes, they did commit treason. See, you just dont understand the word. Perhaps Clinton got into your head when he argued the meaning of the word "is?"

Starscream · Oct 4, 2002

Originally posted by s0uljah
As I originally said, they exposed our "cards" to the enemy.

Ridiculous.  Any person anywhere can just watch the evening news or read a newspaper and see that Deomocrats, many Repulicans, and many Americans oppose the idea of war - until the White House can actual prove its claims that HS has weapons of mass destruction.

If the Prez doesnt get re-elected, then they benefit, being democrats.  The war will help Bush get re-elected (as a side-effect) and thus, they dont want it.

That's some 'side-effect'.  How do you explain the Republicans that don't want to go to war?

I find it absoultely comical that you admit that this war is greatly in Bush's interest - yet you accuse congressmen of treason for wanting to come to a peaceful solution.

Chris†opher Paul · Oct 4, 2002

I find it absoultely comical that you admit that this war is greatly in Bush's interest - yet you accuse congressmen of treason for wanting to come to a peaceful solution.

And no war is greately in their interest. *shrug*

Starscream · Oct 4, 2002

And no war is greately in their interest.

Any war that can be avoided is a benefit to everyone.  Of course I'm embarrassed by mentioning such a simple observation to a paragon of human rights such as yourself.

crazyfingers · Oct 4, 2002

I think that W should accept this offer.

CNN W.H. rejects Bush-Saddam duel offer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House scorned an Iraqi leader's suggestion that President Bush and Saddam Hussein could resolve their differences in a duel, calling it an "irresponsible statement" that did not justify a "serious response."

*snip*

 

 

 

 

p.s. that's a joke for anyone who would call me a traitor...

Smilin · Oct 4, 2002

Wow..we went from BABS NEEDS TO SHADDDDUP...
to..LET'S NUKE IRAQ....

What happened? lol

Lacmeh · Oct 4, 2002

Lol, souljah, supporting nations, that flount human rights makes America better at human rights defending exactly how?
America is only intersted in protecting its own interessts at all costs. Note, I don´t critize that. That is a political stance, that has some merit. in my opinion greatly short sighted, but I don´t lead a nation.
What I deeply detest is the claim in donig things to help human rights and freedom in the world, when actions are exactly the opposite all of the time. Of course, the proper political way is to make your enemy look bad and you look good and reasonable. But I sincerely doubt, that many are buying this defending of human rights thing. I surely don´t buy it.
And you are quite delusional, if you do. Would Iraq use the same weapons of mass destruction in a war against a fundamentalist nation, US would not say a word, as it has already proven.
I sorely miss anyone addressing the point, how can anyone claim defend human rights and in the same breath support war criminals, dictators and other people flounting those same rights?

Morat · Oct 4, 2002

Watching opinions on CNN (of which there is 99% of the time division) is NOT the same as the unprecedented act of going over there and give Bush the big birdie.

  Really? How so? Did they expose the 'secret' that some Congressmen (both democrats and Republicans) don't want to give Bush the authority?

   What new information did they give him? None.

And yes, they did commit treason. See, you just dont understand the word. Perhaps Clinton got into your head when he argued the meaning of the word "is?"

    *snort*. Really? How? You can't point to a single treasonous act. All you do is claim that visiting a country we're not at war with is treason.

  Nor, of course, did you address your own double standard. Why is increase popularity a "side-effect" for Bush, and a "benefit" for Democrats?

  Souljah, you can't even point to a single treasonous act. Congressmen went to visit a country our President requires their authority to invade in order to gather facts.

   What's treasonous about doing their duty under the Constitution?

 

Starscream · Oct 7, 2002

Souljah, you can't even point to a single treasonous act. Congressmen went to visit a country our President <I>requires their authority to invade</I> in order to gather facts.

   What's treasonous about <I>doing their duty under the Constitution</I>?

This is a very good point.  Ultimately, it is up to congress to decide whether or not we go to war - so how can two congressmen be guilty of treason for visiting Iraq?

Do you have any information at all to support your claim?  Do you have a transcript of what they talked about while visiting Iraq? 

This in an exceptional charge, I'm sure your religion does not allow you to mark someone as a traitor without having sufficient proof.

seebs · Oct 7, 2002

Originally posted by Starscream

Any war that can be avoided is a benefit to everyone.  Of course I'm embarrassed by mentioning such a simple observation to a paragon of human rights such as yourself. [/B]

That depends on the terms under which it can be avoided. I'm sure we could have avoided WWII if everyone had agreed to submit peacefully to the Nazi regime's demands.

Starscream · Oct 8, 2002

Originally posted by seebs
That depends on the terms under which it can be avoided. I'm sure we could have avoided WWII if everyone had agreed to submit peacefully to the Nazi regime's demands.

Agreed.  That's why I said "can be avoided".  For several years the U.S. actually did think WW2 could be avoided, were we being traitors then?

This whole thread is kind of silly.  If these congressmen were so obviously guilty of treason then I'm sure Ashcroft would of strung them up by now.

"Babs" needs to shut up~!

Well-Known Member

Untitled One

Based on a True Story

Based on a True Story

Well-Known Member

Based on a True Story

Well-Known Member

Based on a True Story

Untitled One

Based on a True Story

Well-Known Member

Based on a True Story

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Spirit of the Wolf

Well-Known Member

Untitled One

Well-Known Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency