Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: Chris K. on March 12, 2003, 11:43:01 PM



Title: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Chris K. on March 12, 2003, 11:43:01 PM
Okay, this is an off-topic post but let me say even though this is a discussion on a subject of "the upcoming war", this is not a post discussing the rights and wrongs of the war. Rather, it's a different discussion involving it.

So with France, Germany, and Russia not backing us up on this upcoming war, I really don't feel very bitter towards them. It's their decision, what can you do? I could care less, and so could they. Well, it seems that in Capitol Hill some American folks are so p**sed that they decide to rename French Fries and French Toast in their local cafateria. The new names: "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom Toast." And boy, it's not stopping there as now French Kiss is renamed "Freedom Kiss" and French Wine is now called "Freedom Wine". And as these name changes are going on I just have to say, "Do these people have anything else to do with their lives?" I don't want to sound harsh here, but are these name changes really nessasary? Do we benfit from it? Does it make us look like the bigger man than France? My answer: no. And I am pretty sure somebody here on this forum will disagree, but I have no problem with it (hey, it's your opinion and you can stick too it). But it just amazes me as to how these people, who obviously seem to have too much free time on their hands, are now making name changes on products that have "French" attached to them as if it's such a great importance. Is this really that important? Again, I say no. And yet, I don't see any Russian or German names being Americanized. Someone at my college told me, "Why aren't we converting Brautworst to 'Freedom-worst'? Why aren't we changing Russian Roulette to 'Freedom Roulette'?" And I too began to ponder that question as well, but I just can't think of the answer.

To me, these people remind me of the online petition that tried to have THE TWO TOWERS title changed due to their "belief" that it was a direct refference to September 11th. These people want to be taken seriously and are pretty much striving for the attention of the media and press. And in this case, both are getting it. And while the petition of THE TWO TOWERS failed, I have a feeling this fad of changing "French" products to "Freedom" will not last too long. Yes, it could be called an act of patriotisim. But then, the people behind THE TWO TOWERS petition also claimed their reasons were an act of patriotisim as well, so it's still questionable. But this name-change thing is just too ridiculous. And besides, aren't their better things to have on our minds and more important items to attend to than, "Say, let's change the French-name products to..."

Now before you add in your comments, let me just say that I do feel I'm in the minority when I say all of this. I am a proud patriot of this country and one who feels that we should waste no time and just go to war already (I'm not being a "warmonger", I just feel we need to get this taken care of as soon as possible). So please, no "Your an anti-American" comments and insults. Hell, I know some who feel this French name-change is pretty stupid, and these people are NOT anti-war or anti-American or liberals. So let's keep this discussion nice and easy; and avoid any, to use the word, "flame wars".

But as I say all of this, I do feel that we should not turn this into a "political" thing. I would just like to hear your imput on this and what you think about it. Do you agree? Do you disagree? Or are you indifferent?

And when all is said and done, we can get back to the B-movie madness.


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Deej on March 13, 2003, 01:53:28 AM
Chris, you nailed it buddy! It's reminiscent of how sauerkraut was renamed "liberty cabbage" and people were urged to get rid of dachshunds during WWII. It all pretty friggin overblown, and probably close to being downright stupid.

As you said everyone has an opinion about the possibility of an upcoming war, some for it, some against it. What scares the hell out of me is the recent trend in calling any descenting opinion "un-American". Against the war? You're called un-American on Fox news, WTF? You know, I could care less how a celebrity feels about important issues of the day, but to boycott their shows because they voice their opinions? Seems kinda like blacklisting. Might as well form another HUAC, and start naming names.

I hate saying this because I sound like I'm in the ACLU, but what's up with the mob mentality? Even the(tee hee hee) impartial media is chiming in and calling people un-American, saying that expressing anti-war sentiment is aiding the enemy, and generally demonizing anyone with an opposing view.

I love this country, I honestly consider my self honored to have served in our military, and it kinda rubs me wrong when I see people do things like turn their backs on the flag, but they have that right, freedom of speech, good people died for it. And, I think, it's no less wrong to threaten, demonize, or degrade people who are lawfully expressing there beliefs. Anyway, that's my view, sorry for the sermon.



Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Deej on March 13, 2003, 01:58:47 AM
Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention...I still dislike the French, but that's not a recent thing and is totally unrelated to the current UN situaiton.cheers!



Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Flangepart on March 13, 2003, 01:05:08 PM
To me, they are just "Fries". Its like a northener refuseing to use the phrase "Southern fried chicken". Big deal.
Not all French hate us. Its mostly those not from the Normandy area, and the young, who have no direct experiance of the WW2. Not that i can't laugh at all the French jokes!
I think the anger generated by the least popular anti-war types, is the perception of the arrogance they project. Its attitude, man. Disagreeing is one thing, but being disagreeable is another.
Thats why i'm staying out of this as much as i can.
I just hope we win....well, as well as we can win, concitering the rats nest involved.



Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Mofo Rising on March 13, 2003, 03:38:26 PM
"Three wars back we called sauerkraut Liberty Cabbage, and we called Liberty Cabbage Super Slaw."
-Abe Simpson

I think it's perfectly reasonable.  It's just that we haven't gone far enough.  

First, all words that begin with "ch" but sound like "sh" are French based.  We must either pronounce prounounce the "ch" as in "chair" or switch the beginnings of each word to "fr" (for "freedom").

Second, Statue of Liberty.  Constant reminder of the French.  Tear it down.  That or increase it's bust size and plate her hair with gold.

Third, give the original thirteen colonies back to England.  We don't need your help to imperialize the country, you damn Frenchies.

And those are just the first three steps in my double-plus good plan to excise franc-based cultural traits from our soil.  Anybody who wants to hear the rest of my manifesto, I will be reciting it before a bunch of monkeys I have dressed up as various members of the U.N. in the parking lot at the local Arby's Friday afternoon.

Also, this was the March 12 entry in my George Carlin one-a-day calender:
"I don't care if there's a nuclear war as long as I can get some french fries."


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Squishy on March 13, 2003, 04:05:26 PM
Heh heh, good one, Mofo. However, based on what I've seen in other threads, I think irony is dead around here...(but I'll give it shot anyway)

How very quickly we forgot the troops France assisted us with in Afghanistan. Or for that matter, the American Revolution. But facts like that don't stop slobbering chickenhawk jingoists like Bruce Tinsley, George Will, Dittoasses, the Weiner Nation, and other loud, brash cowards from practicing their mindless propaganda.

France won't back up our incredibly stupid plan? Treacherous bastards! Don't they realize they owe us? (sarcasm) We stood by and watched--even helped--the Nazi war machine roll over them (fact), and then single-handedly saved them without any help whatsoever! (malarky) Are we not Gods? Do we not deserve to rule the Earth unquestioned? (sarcasm again) Their arrogance knows no bounds! (irony)

------------------------------

"George Will saw fit to include in his latest Newsweek column this joke: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, it's never been tried." That was certainly amusing. One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives trying to stop Hitler.

"On behalf of every one of those 100,000 men, I would like to thank Mr. Will for his clever joke. They were out-manned, out-gunned, out-generaled and, above all, out-tanked. They got slaughtered, but they stood and they fought. Ha-ha, how funny. In the few places where they had tanks, they held splendidly.

"...We Americans are famously ahistorical. We can barely be bothered to remember what happened last week, or last month, much less last year. The French are really stuck on history. ...Does it not occur to anyone that these are  very old friends of ours, trying to tell us what they think they know about being hated by weak enemies in the Third World?"

--Molly Ivins, 2-18-03 -- excerpted from Working For Change (http://www.workingforchange.com)


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Squishy on March 13, 2003, 04:39:20 PM
Oh, for God's sake:

"Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville, plans to introduce a bill today proposing that the families of the thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen buried in France and Belgium be allowed to dig up their remains and have them shipped home."

"Mack McConn, 78, of Orlando, who survived the D-Day landings at Normandy, during which more than 10,000 Americans were killed, was outraged at the suggestion of moving the bodies.

'That is ridiculous,' the Navy veteran said. 'I can tell you right now that I don't approve of it at all. We've had problems with the French before, but it's like a spat; you get over it. It would be ridiculous to open those graves.'"

 * Ginny Brown-Waite:
    Phone: 202-225-1002
    Fax: 202-226-6559


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Deej on March 13, 2003, 04:50:57 PM
Keeeeerist! Everyday life is starting to seem like a bad movie. This is all too similar to Canadian Bacon!! And the creepy bit is that people are buying into this crap. What can you do? I'm just gonna finish my breakfast of Freedom Toast, go pick my girlfriend up from the hair place(salon is out), where she is getting Freedom braids, give her a big Freedom kiss, maybe get an ice cream on the way home, I'm feeling like some Freedom Vanilla, then titilate,or possibly scare, her with the special Freedom tickler, I had imported all the way from Freedom. And afterwards, just hope for the best. Senator McCarthy on line 1.



Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Chris K. on March 13, 2003, 05:01:23 PM
Deej wrote:
>
> I'm just gonna finish my breakfast of Freedom Toast,
> go pick my girlfriend up from the hair place(salon is out),
> where she is getting Freedom braids, give her a big Freedom
> kiss, maybe get an ice cream on the way home, I'm feeling
> like some Freedom Vanilla, then titilate,or possibly scare,
> her with the special Freedom tickler, I had imported all the
> way from Freedom. And afterwards, just hope for the best.
> Senator McCarthy on line 1.

I, on the other hand, am going to finnish my "French Toast" and order up some "French Fries", then gonna' go out and buy some "French Wine" and yes, get some "French Vanilla" ice cream. And if anybody has a problem with the use of "French" in these terms, well then screw them!

I agree with you Deej: Everyday life is starting to seem like a bad movie. The only question that remains: Can this bad movie-life be stopped?


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: raj on March 13, 2003, 05:10:49 PM
My great uncle is one of those WWI soldiers buried there, and I'm perfectly content to leave him there.  I'm all for getting rid of Saddam, the sooner the better, and I believe that Chirac's intransigence is due his fear that the extent of French dealings with Iraq, will be uncovered.  However, this renaming of things is petty & childish, not to mention out and out stupid.  I don't mind French & German antiwar protesters, that's one reason we fought WWII.  They may be naive or stupid (IMO), but that's democracy.  

Shoot, if you could only do/say the correct thing (never mind how to figure out what that is) then where would Ed Wood be?  (as he tries to make the off-topic thread on-topic)


Title: Re: No
Post by: Chadzilla on March 13, 2003, 06:08:10 PM
?



Title: Re: Temporary Insanity
Post by: Chadzilla on March 13, 2003, 06:18:42 PM
And I am not giving up watching Jean Rollin movies just because of a lousy disagreement over which road to take.

Of course, the French have been down the Imperialist road and know a thing or two about terrorist attacks.  They've been down this road before us and are only pointing out pot holes we sadly think that our Hummers and SUVs can handle.  So has Russia - remember the stupid Rambo III back drop?  The Russian war in Afghanistan?  That was their Vietnam.  We should pause, study their mistakes, and act accordingly.  Won't happen though, what with us being invincibabble and all that

One more thing, can Ann Coulter please start wearing bikinis on Hannity and Colmes?  :-D



Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Pete B6K on March 13, 2003, 06:35:23 PM
I really should try and stay out of anything remotely political on this board (personal points of view conflict quite strongly with many here, and I know there's relatively large proportion of military types on the board) but a few thoughts came up reading all this like I'd like to air.

First thing I'd like to clear up is the fact that anti-war or anti-bush are often misinterpreted as anti-American.  I am in no way at all anti-American, but like I've said in previous discussions I disagree with a lot of stuff your government does.  But then I'm anti-Blair too, and disagree with a lot of stuff our UK government does, but that dosen't make me anti-Britain.

Which brings me ontro the subject of patriotism.  Another subject I'll try not to get too deep into.  Basically, on the whole I don't feel patriotism is a positive thing.  One way of looking at patriotism is 'the belief that your country is greater than all others because it just so happens you were born there'.  And patriotism can often (I don't mean to generalise) be a slippery slope to feelings of nationalism, imperialism, and in the extreme, racism.  Patriotism can often be a harmless pride of your country, a happiness with the way your country is, but I don't feel we've got too much to be proud of in recent years.

Another thing patriotism does is fool us into thinking that the life of a person from our country is more valuable than that of a person from another country.  I say this with all respect, and I understand that 9-11 was a disgusting atrocity, any loss of life is a terrible tragedy, but the fact that an estimated 8000 Iraqis died from sanction-imposed famines and diseases that could have been treated by medicines not allowed into the country by sanctions on that same day is ignored. (and no I can't prove that figure, I accept that it may be flawed and biased but i feel the point I use it to make still stands).  I'm putting on my flame proof jacket as we speak.

I feel the whole renaming food thing is not only stupid but a form of 'socially acceptable' racism. And racism's something I've never accepted in any form. To propogate widescale negative feelings towards a whole nation of people because of their political stance is terrible. Then there's the fact that it's stupid, purile, immature, idiotic, pointless and all the other things mentioned by others too. Especially seen as 100% (or maybe only almost 100%) of your 'French' fries are US-produced.

And lastly if there is a boycott/renaming of things from anti-war countries, I feel the UK should be included in that along with France, Russia and Germany.  Tony Blair in no way represents public opinion in this country.  He hardly even has majority support within his own party, people who work for him are threatening to quit if he goes ahead as he is now.

And I tried not to get all too much into anti-war arguments, but I've limited myself to just one short one:

Dead people can't celebrate their freedom.

Pete


Title: Re: Temporary Insanity
Post by: Gerry on March 13, 2003, 07:46:24 PM
Chadzilla wrote:
>
> Of course, the French have been down the Imperialist road and
> know a thing or two about terrorist attacks.

They sure as hell have.  Most of us are probably too young to remember the French-Algerian war but that was one of the ugliest conflicts in world history.

France has a huge minority population from Islamic countries including Morroco, Algeria, Turkey, and some of the west African nations like Senegal.  It is easy to understand why they would hestitate going into a Muslim country when the issues aren't entirely black and white.

[For the record I support the war.]


Title: Question Chadzilla
Post by: Chris K. on March 13, 2003, 10:05:16 PM
Chadzilla wrote:
>
> One more thing, can Ann Coulter please start wearing bikinis
> on Hannity and Colmes?

Speaking of Shean Hannity, do you ever listen to his radio program? If so, what do you think of it?


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Pancho on March 13, 2003, 10:24:01 PM
Pete pretty much summed up everything I was going to say.  I have family in Brooklyn and they knew people killed on 9/11.  Yet even they don't support the war because it's just killing more innocent people.  For the record I'm a pacifist so I'm against any war but Iraq seems to be our go to nation whenever something needs to be bombed.  Bush losing some popularity? Bomb Iraq.  People asking why the economy's so bad?  Bomb Iraq.  What about all those innocent dead Iraqis mr. Bush?  Oh well........ they weren't American anyway.


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: tuck on March 14, 2003, 05:49:22 AM
is it me or does bush have the IQ of a monkey?
i dont know much about cuz i'm british but i know our prime minister is f**king spineless and seems desperate to go to war.


Title: Re: Sean Hannity
Post by: Chadzilla on March 14, 2003, 12:36:26 PM
I'm not a particularly big fan of Mr. Hannity.  I have listened to his show once or twice, but it never really catches me.  I'm a Savage Nation fan myself.  THAT show has me laughing so hard that I'm near tears.  What that says about me, I'm afraid to find out.  :-D



Title: Re: Bush and Blair.
Post by: Chadzilla on March 14, 2003, 12:42:51 PM
I don't think he's stupid, but I don't think he's the sharpest tool on the rack either.  IQ wise he's probably average for an American  (of which I am one).  I remember something Michael Savage said in a TV appearance.  If Bush hadn't of come from a wealthy and politically connected family (i.e. the right wing answer to the Kennedy Clan) then he probably would be running a Yogurt Stand at a Stadium someplace.  And just how spineless is Blair?  He is standing firm in his stance, despite just about everybody being against him, including his own party (the right winges here love comparing him to Churchill).  He has a tremendous amount to loose if things go south, that shows some backbone, even if one does not agree with the stance he is taking, he his standing for something.



Title: Re: Bush and Blair.
Post by: Deej on March 14, 2003, 12:57:37 PM
I don't know about average. The man is pretty dim. Thick as a whale omelet.



Title: Re: Bush and Blair... and Aznar.
Post by: Neville on March 14, 2003, 01:22:18 PM
You can add spanish president Jose Maria Aznar to the list of presidents who listen carefully to what the people say (80% of spaniards are against the war) and then decide to support the completely oppossite option. Aznar has seen the biggest demonstrations in spanish history chant in front of the senate several times, then has tried to convince us that they all had been manipulated by the socialists or that they were actually demanding Saddam to disarm himself (sic). What's worst, he is about to make our country  enter war without explaining why or bothering to consult the senate, which of course is illegal. He has also called traitors and irresponsible all who have argued against the idea, and even tried to stop all kinds of people to express their opinion on the matter if it was contrary to his through media control.

Jeb Bush came to Spain several weeks ago. After displaying an amazing knowledge of our system of government (he called Aznar head of the Republic of Spain), he told him to resist, because his efforts would be "well rewarded".

I am not going to explain my views on the war, which are already formed, but the USA are trying to obtain support in all the wrong ways, and I'm not surprised the are facing such opposition.


Title: Re: Sean Hannity
Post by: Chris K. on March 14, 2003, 01:22:20 PM
Chadzilla wrote:
>
> I'm not a particularly big fan of Mr. Hannity.  I have
> listened to his show once or twice, but it never really
> catches me.  

I'm not a big fan either. But, I do listen to his show just to hear what comments he will fire out of his mouth. Listening to Hannity and Rush Limbaugh is like listening to two crazed madmen: they go on and on and on, yet it's still very entertaining.


Title: Re: The Ulitmate Crazed Madman
Post by: Chadzilla on March 14, 2003, 01:57:19 PM
Is Michael Savage, is show always leaves me slack jawed and giggling.



Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Squishy on March 14, 2003, 03:07:09 PM
"There's no such thing as racial profiling! It's the biggest lie of our time." ("Weiner Nation" broadcast, 10/4/02)

"We need racist stereotypes right now of our enemy in order to encourage our warriors to kill the enemy." (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/6/03).

"We need another brave Senator, like McCarthy, whom history has proven to be a loyal patriot." ("Weiner Nation" broadcast, 10/4/02)

Yes, Michael Weiner ("No, I'm Savage! Stop it! And stop calling it Weiner Nation or I'll give you such a PINCH!!") is a barrel of laughs. Almost as funny as, say, David Duke.

He rather reminds me of Bob Boudelang (http://www.democraticunderground.com/bob/03/73.html), who takes on the threat of Freedom (and its toast and poodles and ticklers) this week; except Bob's more handsome and coherent.

...Uh oh. Now the Dixie Chicks are starting to be taken off of radio station playlists. Remember: boycotts and censorship are ONLY bad if they're aimed at chickenhawk warmongers.


Title: Re: Wassup with the Dixie Chicks?
Post by: Chadzilla on March 14, 2003, 04:20:53 PM
Who have they p**sed off now, besides Charlie Daniels?  We know what an uber-patriot he is! snerk

And yeah, I find the Savage Weiner funny because I don't take anything the dork says seriously.  I know others take him seriously and a whole lot of who-ha about this and that can be tossed around, but I support the right for all voices to spurt out whatever vile flatulence (no matter what side of the political fence they may sit on) they want.  Keeps them in the public eye.  And I'll laugh while they do it.

At somepoint somebody's going to be dancing on our graves anyway.



Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Chris K. on March 14, 2003, 04:48:26 PM
Squishy wrote:
>
> "There's no such thing as racial profiling! It's the biggest
> lie of our time." ("Weiner Nation" broadcast, 10/4/02)
>
> "We need racist stereotypes right now of our enemy in order
> to encourage our warriors to kill the enemy." (San Francisco
> Chronicle, 2/6/03).
>
> "We need another brave Senator, like McCarthy, whom history
> has proven to be a loyal patriot." ("Weiner Nation"
> broadcast, 10/4/02)
>
> Yes, Michael Weiner ("No, I'm Savage! Stop it! And stop
> calling it Weiner Nation or I'll give you such a PINCH!!") is
> a barrel of laughs. Almost as funny as, say, David Duke.

Wow, talk about a barrel-full-of-laughs quotes! Are these meant to be taken seriously? I just can't stop laughing at the sheer audacity and silliness of these "statements".

As for Bob Boudelang, his comments are like reading a criminal's manafesto: dull, dirivitive, illogical, and so damned funny you just can't take it seriously (sorry folks, this is all I can come up with; I wish I had more to say, but I think I will stop for a few moments).


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Pete B6K on March 14, 2003, 04:54:44 PM
I really truly hope Bush does not represent the average  intelligence of an American.  Him's the guy whom sayed  this things  (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/best.shtml)

And there's a good reason Bush has the IQ of a chimp. There's proof here  (http://www.bushorchimp.com/) or, in the style of 'They Live!', more proof  here  (http://www.webdesignlab.co.uk/niksthings/masking.html) .

And be careful not to publicly support peace, there could be serious consequences  (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030304_651.html) ! Maybe Iraq's not the only country where people need to start fighting for their freedom.

peace out, Pete


Title: Re: Welllllll
Post by: Chadzilla on March 14, 2003, 05:08:24 PM
10. At this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly outta Ronald Reagan Airport.

Oh, sh*t.
 
8. When you have your own money, it means you've got more money to spend.

Makes cents.

7. The benefits of helping somebody is beneficial.

duhya

6. We're in for a long struggle, and I think Texans understand that. And so do Americans.

Well, the commercials say its like a whole other country! :-D

5. Sometimes when I sleep at night I think of "Hop on Pop".
4. I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here.
3. And one of the things we've got to make sure that we do is anything.
2. We're making the right decisions to bring the solution to an end.
1. Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better.


Hey, give piece a change, ok?



Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Chadzilla on March 14, 2003, 05:12:06 PM
Chris K. wrote:
>
> Wow, talk about a barrel-full-of-laughs quotes! Are these
> meant to be taken seriously? I just can't stop laughing at
> the sheer audacity and silliness of these "statements".
>
>

I think he's honest to God serious.  What's even funnier is how, when someone calls in with an opposing POV, instead of debating them he just calls them names.  Honestly, I think I would only find the on air exorcisms by Bob Larson (sp?) funnier.



Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Chris K. on March 14, 2003, 05:25:24 PM
Pete B6K wrote:
>
> And be careful not to publicly support peace, there could be
> serious consequences  (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030304_651.html) ! Maybe Iraq's not the only country where people need to start fighting for their freedom.

Just read that article link and all I have to say is, "What happened to OUR freedom." You hear all these Republicans (and no, I'm not on the Democrat side either) and Rush Limbaugh saying that we have to go to war and help the citizens of Iraq so they can be free and have freedom. And I agree with that. But, here in the USA what's happening to our freedom.

As from what the article link states, a man in his local mall buys a shirt that says "Give Peace a Chance". He puts on the shirt, is confronted by mall security and is demanded to take the shirt off. He refuses, and thus get's arrested by mall security. And this shirt was BEING SOLD in the mall itself! This, my fellow readers, is a typical example of our freedoms being thrown out the window. And don't get me started on the various un-just laws that have been passed with no hindsight to their sheer audacity.

And I ask, what happened to, "The land of the FREE"?


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Funk, E. on March 14, 2003, 06:59:18 PM
In principle I'm a pacifist or more accurately a fond believer in mutual human respect as the basis of any true moral standard. I believe that violence on any level outside of food acquisition (Long Live Omnivores! ;-)) is inherently immoral. I also believe that in the land of an eye for an eye for everyone ends up at least half-blind. The last person to loose a loved on in a war is never avenged, but that person is the only one who can start peace. I also have a black belt and will f**king kill anyone who threatens my or my loved ones’ well being. So as long as there is conflict, which according to world history would seem to be a human constant, then there is a need to get about it for the right reasons in the most efficient way possible.

If this drags on much longer Bush will loose no matter what the outcome is. The longer this war thing hangs in the air the longer international relations are strained, the longer the economy holds it’s breathe (and suffers) and the more expensive it become with all of those troops deployed. Either: a) f**king do it already and accept the consequences or b) don’t and accept the consequences. Indecision is always the enemy in a conflict.

I think Bush is in fact dim witted, but I also sincerely doubt that he’s really in charge. Our government hasn’t been run my the elected officials in a long time. There is an entrenched political infrastructure that has taken on a life of it’s own at work here and it’s interests become progressively more aristocratic in nature.

As for the whole French/freedom thing. It just goes to show exactly how malleable people are. I swear I’ve never seen a more stack jawed, “whatever you say” attitude in my life!

As for the anti-war = anti-american. That’s an age old tactic. People bow to peer pressure faster than a teenage boy cums during his 1st time having sex. If freedom of speech were openly curtailed it would provide a rallying point, a catalyst. Making certain things inappropriate eases people into forfeiture of rights. There’s a saying I forget from where but it goes like this: “People don’t want to be free they want to be secure.” Liberties are sacrificed in the face of fear and that is what a government seeking greater control needs. To create a fear external to themselves that the people feel is greater than their fear of their own government. People don’t realize that there are implications to the Homeland securities act, Anti-terrorism act and Patriot act that have not been used that are very compromising to civil liberties. If fully “activated” these laws are FAR more restrictive than they have been used for thus far and that is my greatest fear.

My dad fought in Vietnam, my brother in Kosovo and they fought for a free America. Seems a shame that our own government want’s to take that away.

Who says 2 cents doesn't by a lot anymore ;-)


Title: The mall incident
Post by: Deej on March 14, 2003, 07:03:16 PM
Chris K. wrote:
> As from what the article link states, a man in his local mall
> buys a shirt that says "Give Peace a Chance". He puts on the
> shirt, is confronted by mall security and is demanded to take
> the shirt off. He refuses, and thus get's arrested by mall
> security. And this shirt was BEING SOLD in the mall itself!
> This, my fellow readers, is a typical example of our freedoms
> being thrown out the window. And don't get me started on the
> various un-just laws that have been passed with no hindsight
> to their sheer audacity.
>
> And I ask, what happened to, "The land of the FREE"?


Stephen Downs, the lawyer who was arrested, claims he was just sitting there minding his own, when he was accosted by the jackbooted mall cops. But according to mall security and police reports, he and another guy, were actually stopping other customers to protest the war, and some of the customers complained to security.

I definitely agree that everyone has a right to express his or her opinion, but they don't have a right to do it on private property, which the mall is. Also, if I were a business owner and I recieved complaints from customers who were made to feel uncomfortable, I'd toss the guy too.

Maybe he was just minding his own business and they tossed him because they didn't like his shirt, or maybe he was being an annoyance and they tossed him for that reason. Basically, it's his word against mall security and some other customers. To me personally, it sounds like a fair cop. Although, I doubt I'd have done more than cite him, and send him on his way. The police reports are at http://thesmokinggun.com/. Check them out, make up your own mind.

Ya no pick up the cage....ya no get the big dollahs!
DJ


Title: Re: Iraq, War, etc
Post by: Andrew on March 14, 2003, 07:23:09 PM
Okay, I usually avoid political discussions like the plague.  Let me add some information though.  It seems that we forget so easily.

Iraq and Iran were at war for quite some time.  During the war, Iraq used chemical agents against both the Kurds and Iranian civilians.  Iraq also used chemical weapons against Kurds during uprisings, after the Gulf War.  Why does the world so hate chemical weapons?  All weapons kill, but chemical weapons kill everyone unlucky enough to be in the area (and sometimes downwind).  They make a larger casualty zone, which is more likely to include innocents.  Chalk this up to the same reason the U.S. has never used another nuclear bomb.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, looted the museums, ravaged the populace, and refused to get out.  After about 6 months we went in.  Again, this whole mess (including the problem we now face, with a world divided) was caused by Iraq invading Kuwait.  If Saddam had withdrawn from Kuwait, I doubt our present would be as ugly as it was.

The peace terms were agreed upon by the UN.  Iraq disarms, so on and so on.  Even so, at one point (1995?  I think?) Iraq moved troops in what seemed to be preparation to invade Kuwait again.  The world freaked out.  We sent more troops.  Eventually Saddam backed down.

The oil for food and medicine program was approved by the UN around 1995.   While thousands starve or barely survive, Saddam and his elite class enjoy palaces and Western luxuries.  Gold trim in the palaces?  You bet.  Sculpted fountains and waterfalls?  Yep.  Has he spent large sums of money on exotic foods and liquors?  (Allowed under the oil for food rules, a loophole.)  YES.   Does Saddam receive a cut from smuggled oil?  Money that has been used to buy "questionable" items?  Yes again.  Meanwhile, as said, the Iraq population wallows in poverty.  Oh, and why did Iraq buy nerve agent antitoxin?  About enough to equip the Republican Guard?

Saddam controls everything in his country:  radio, newspapers, religion, and schools.  It is hard to say that the people there are making informed choices about anything.

Two of Saddam's family (Sons or was it cousins?) fled the country with documents about secret weapons' programs.  This was around 1996 to 1998.  It included weaponized anthrax and VX nerve gas, along with a failed nuclear program.  They were eventually lured back and, unfortunately, killed.

I can honestly say that I would trust Saddam about as far as I could throw him, and he looks a little heavy.  After 12 years of trying to verify that he has disarmed and his country suffering, along with continued vigilance against his nasty little self, we are only marginally closer.  Someone made the point that it seems the UN's stance is, "Do this or we will pass another resolution about it."

Another thought:  if you were really getting stonewalled and wanted to break the wall, wouldn't the immediate threat of war seem like a good tactic?  Who knows.  Maybe we are not planning on going to war, but using 250,000 troops as our final chess move to hopefully avert such a war.  I could be wrong; I can hardly say that I read minds.

Many of the antiwar people I have talked with were not able to discuss the history of the region and the issues.  Most of all, their final argument was, "But the whole world is against war."  That is never a good argument with me.  It elicits my response to such arguments, "Cliff, jump, now."

I don't want to go to war.  It means leaving my wife and soon my daughter.  It means knowing that some of my fellow Marines will not be coming home.  It means that, despite two thousand years of progress, man still has to resort to violence at times.  But, if it is the only way, so be it.  I've said this before a few fights, "Let us get this over with, so we can get on with our lives."



Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: yaddo42 on March 14, 2003, 07:23:29 PM
I finally saw Michael Savage on his new weekend MSNBC show last week (I haven't read anything of his, other than quotes, or heard his radio yet, don't know if it's on locally). He was advocating declaring war on Iraq as soon as possible, if for no other reason so the Sedition Act can be invoked to jail anti-war protesters, dissenting journalist and writers, and most of Hollywood to hear him tell it. To quote Bruce Dern in 1975's POSSE, "What a nice man."

The whole "french/freedom" fiasco shows the level of most political discussions in this country. Are we going to renamed french dressing also, or will we all switch to Catalina dressing? Will people boycott Jerry Lewis' Labor Day telethon since the French like his movies so much? Will old episode of SNL have to redubbed so that the Coneheads claim to come from Bulgaria (the Joey Bishop of Bush's Rat Pack-like coalition). Will people burn effigies of John Cleese's rude French guard from MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL?

Sheesh.


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Funk, E. on March 14, 2003, 07:57:29 PM
Andrew makes good points. All points that I have read about. When this whole thing started I became increasingly discontent with both side (on the street anyway) having the stupidest rhetoric so I decided to take a closer, more in depth look.

Saddam is a threat and I believe would be more destabilizing than an American occupation. Saddam has perfected the art of hiding and mobilizing illegal weapons facilities/laboratories. He has them, they exist, they are a serious threat. Also the lack of international consensus is a mired issue. There are politics in Russia, Germany and France that motivate the leaders of those nations that are unique to their situation besides arms sales. Every one sells guns to everyone. Get over it. If people recall their history correctly we didn’t enter either world war on the outset. We recanted after the fact.

Will our intervention change the economic stratification in that country? Will the poor be less poor? Will less of them starve and be denied medical attention? Sorry Andrew, I respect you immensely, but I doubt we will play such an altruistic roll. In our own country I have a hard time qualifying the “improvement” in the lives of most black people since the Civil War. I find most of them are a) not free and b) not with a higher standard of living and c) abused and killed about as often as before. I think our own society is becoming more stratified. Also, sympathy for the poor is rarely a priority in our foreign policy. Anyone who thinks we’re doing this for the sake of “freeing the population from a vicious dictator” is deluding themselves. We didn’t kick Hitler’s ass to save the Jews. Just like we did nothing while Pol Pot slaughtered 3 million of his own people. It’s just not a factor in our decision making process. We’re in it for strategic reasons, sound strategic reason, but “humanitarian” concerns are strictly window dressing.

On a side note: this whole we did this and that for France and France did this and that for us routine. I wasn’t alive when we helped France in WWII I can’t say that they owe me for the kindness. Vice Versa, thanks for the statue, but what have you done for us lately. Debts of honor/gratitude die with the people who made them. The fact that they aren’t on the bus with the US government isn’t treachery, it’s politics. We stepped into Vietnam for them. They stepped in on our Revolutionary War. Who cares. It’s over. Past cooperation obligates no one.


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Pete B6K on March 14, 2003, 08:25:31 PM
Ok, you made a lot of fair points, Andrew, but the problem is they don't counter the reasons why I think war is the wrong thing to do.

I agree with you that Saddam is a disgusting, horrible, evil person and I have no qualms with him being removed/killed/skinned/whatever.  If someone were to give me a gun and put me within sight of him, I'd kill him. And for someone who'd consider himself a pacifist to a great extent, that's saying something.

But we all know full well that that isn't how it will happen, there is no bomb with his name on it, there are only thousands of bombs labelled 'IRAQ', or maybe 'eyerack' if you let George label them.  The country will be bombed to smithereens, millions more innocent civilians will die, each one of them as innocent and as worthy of life as your own wife and daughter.

And in talking about the sanctions you prove how wrong they are. It goes to show that the sanctions didn't affect Saddam, they only affected the innocent people, who have to live on an average 40c a day each.  And there was never any reason to control the import of medical supplies and equipment, which is what the sanctions did.

And you may be interested to hear (as I'm fairly sure US media won't tell you) that your own government DOES research and produce biochem weapons.  They discovered a loophole that allowed them to manufacture these weapons under the pretense that they were for 'domestic law enforcement', which has no international laws on biochem weapons.

International law states clearly that pre-emptive force is only acceptable in the face of a clear imminent attack on another country.  Why the UN isn't disarming the US and UK for that reason is beyond me.  I could point out our weapons of mass destruction myself.

And the 'war for oil' issue is one that divides even those against the war.  Whether it is the reason for the war or not, I am certain it is a factor, maybe a 'fringe benefit' or 'silver lining' to Bush and Co.

I think I'll call it a night before I go on forever about this,
Pete


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Drezzy on March 14, 2003, 08:30:36 PM
I'll add my 2 cents to the original topic:

Ancestors of mine came from France. I'm mostly Scottish, Portuguese, and British, but I do have some French in me. While I'll make the France joke here and there, I can't say that I support the "freedom"-ing of all things with the word "French" in them. What's the point? By doing so, it creates the scene that America is the little boy wanting to get into a fight with the weird mean kid down the street, and the good friends next door named France and Germany are trying to talk America out of it, but he won't listen, and just calls them sissies.



Title: Oh, and another item on my mind that I need to bring up
Post by: Chris K. on March 14, 2003, 11:51:45 PM
Is it just me, or are you all really tired of these celebrities (i.e., George Clooney, Martin Sheen, etc.) trying to give their so-called "say" of this upcoming war? To me this is just a typical "Worship me, damn it!" attitude of these big stars who try to make their incoherant statements. I don't mind them disagreeing. But could they make their claims with logic attached to them; they say the same thing (i.e., Bush is a bad president, it's all about the oil, all the money will be wasted on the war, etc.) everytime they open their big mouths.

A friend of mine joked to me about the celebrities claims. He said: "With all these big stars claiming this war will waste 'their' estimate guess of $5 million , I'm not suprised. They just want that million to go to their paychecks and their upcoming crap-film, which will probably tank. And they say the million will be a waste on this war. Ha!"


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Squishy on March 15, 2003, 03:55:17 AM
Remember Afghanistan? Boy, we had a coalition and everything. There were protestors, but not nearly so many, and Saddam is generally regarded by the entire world as Darth Vader's dirty cousin. So why does the sequel suck so badly?

Thomas Friedman made a lot of sense in a recent editorial; he actually came from a point of view that I'd lost in the day-to-day point-by-point arguing: everyone wants Saddam deader'n Hell. The devil's in the details.

The only reason anyone's fighting over this--to the point we're talking about digging up each other's graveyards--is because Bush wants it done His Way, on His Terms, on His Schedule, f*** you all. He has convinced the world that, at best, his motives are highly suspect, and at worst he desires world domination at unimaginable cost. He (with a great deal of help from Saddam's old buddy, Donald Rumsfeld) has squandered all the good will the world gave him on September 11th. Lyrics from hymns and phrases like "crusade" littering his speeches, he seems to want the Middle East united against him. In that, at least, he's doing an incredible job.  

The fact that he's currently blowing billions of bucks buying buddies--and you know how long THAT sort of loyalty lasts--says everything about his foreign policy, and none of it good. It's become so ridiculous that, if you exchange the words "France" and "Canada," our current situation resembles nothing so much as "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut."

I just hope the climax's different.

Notes:

Lest anyone insist I'm trying to decieve, Bob Boudelang is a fictional parody character. "So stop saying that!" :)

Wasted Irony (http;//www.wastedirony.com) has a kickass rebuttal to the spin that says we have to give Chimpy what he wants, right now, no questions asked.

Damned Un-American Commie Bastards!! (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1020-02.htm) We should drive them out of our good, Christian country!!


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Squishy on March 15, 2003, 03:57:33 AM
Oops, that link won't hunt. Try http://www.wastedirony.com or this if it works. (http://www.wastedirony.com)


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Squishy on March 19, 2003, 04:50:54 AM
This (http://www.starspangledicecream.com/) is either brilliant satire or flabbergasting stupidity.

"Can you prove that it didn't happen?"
--Criswell


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Damien on March 19, 2003, 11:06:58 AM
I like to know if they are going to make "Hot Shots part 3"


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Flangepart on March 19, 2003, 11:18:01 AM
STAR SPANGLED ICE CREAM....uh...Flabbergasting Satire?



Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Chadzilla on March 19, 2003, 12:44:54 PM
Yeah, but the Ice Cream taste as good as Ben & Jerry's?



Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Squishy on March 19, 2003, 03:38:51 PM
It tastes like crap, but if you complain John Ashcroft has you shipped off to Gitmo for "questioning," traitor.


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Chadzilla on March 19, 2003, 03:50:49 PM
Squishy wrote:
>
> It tastes like crap, but if you complain John Ashcroft has
> you shipped off to Gitmo for "questioning," traitor.

Listen here you *(#(&#(%(# UnAmerican Commiefagpinko*!  You are one more snide UnAmerican comment away from getting your snotty UnAmerican buttocks tossed into a re-education class, where you'll LEARN TO LOVE THIS COUNTRY RIGHT!  RIGHT!?

Uh, wrong.  :-(


(* This is a term that George Carlin used in a routine, some Squishy will no dount know, but some of you might actually think I'm insulting our dear poster.)



Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Evan3 on March 19, 2003, 10:08:20 PM
OK Pete. The most fascinating thing about this is that we get less than 5 percent of our oil from Iraq. Do you know who gets the majority of Iraqi oil? France. Why is France for peace? Because they want their oil. In no way is this war a direct or fringe oil war. It may help to crack OPEC open, but hell, thats not that big of a deal.

Now I will entertain you and let us say that yes, this is a self interested war, just to set up a Pro American "democracy." In doing so, we will free people who have been abused and destroyed from a clearly evil dictator. We will have a stronghold in which we could potentially stabilize a very dangerous region. So the question is, do the means justify the ends? That is a question which I will leave to you..

While I personally love French bashing, the new names are ri-cock-ulous. Fries are from Belgium, not France. France is totally free to do what it feels is right, without such silly condemnation.

Also, I dont think any of you have the right to call the President dim witted. Have any of you met him personally and had a one on one discusiion with him no. And these allegations that the govt. isnt controlled by our elected officials is ridiculous. The government is controlled by Bush and the senate and house, who are controlled by money, which is the only unifyiying factor throughout time.

Secondly, saying that the majority of the country is anti war is ridiculous. The last poll stated a slight favor towards war (at least in AMerica). Protests make news, however, protesters seem to be the loud minority of people. Also, this is in no way a war vs. innocents.

Why are the people sick and hungry? Because the aid that Iraq receives is funneled straight to Sadam (very similar situation happens in Palestine, dont Arafat and Saddam both look fat while their people starve). With our new technology, there is no way that civilians will be the majority of people killed. And America in no way will kill more civilians than Saddam has. That is a ridiculous assumption.

However, my one wonder is why Iraq? Most of the 9/11 terrorists were funded by Saudi Arabia. North Korea is a MUCH bigger threat that really needs to be stopped. Iraq had been quiet recently. I think if we are going to police the world (which we do, because the UN is as ineffective as the League of Nations), we should attack the right spots.

Chris K. you also made some great points



Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Chris K. on March 19, 2003, 10:45:16 PM
Evan3 wrote:
>
> Chris K. you also made some great points

Thanks Evan3 and I also felt that you made some excellent points too. I was hoping that this subject wouldn't get too "political", but what can you do?

Also, I was recently told this story at Columbia College today and I remember very little of it. I was told that some news commenator on Fox News made a comment that "The Statue of Liberty should be taken down and returned back to France". That's what I basically heard, so if anybody here has the full detals or that I was mislead please feel free to comment.

But if true, this just proves that their are more morons comming out of the woodwork. And if that half-witted, dumbass George Will makes a comment about it in his so-called "news collumist" section, then it still proves that more morons are on the way.


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: JohnL on March 20, 2003, 05:01:54 AM
I don't pretend to understand all the issues involved. I'm not completely against war with Iraq (I think they should have finished off SH during Desert Storm, rather than letting him "save face"), but I'm not completely for it either.

What bothers me is that Bush reminds me more and more of Martin Sheen's character in The Dead Zone.


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Squishy on March 20, 2003, 05:38:36 AM
Sorry, Evan--I remember The Dimwit telling us he'd pay for everything out of The Surplus--tax cuts, additional spending, the whole Magilla. "Surplus," unfortunately, is a word of French origin. Now facing deficits that boggle the mind, AND an open-ended "war," he insists upon further tax cuts--suggesting that he can't handle basic math. I could go on...and on...and on...but. Dimwit is as dimwit does.

Iraq is not about to be "liberated"--any more than Afghanistan was. Sure, we blew up (some of) the Taliban (and the occasional wedding party, whoopsie), but we've turned the country back over to the control of the same warlords who sent the people of Afghanistan into the loving clutches of the Taliban in the first place. If "free" comes in degrees, then they're...well, actually, they're no more liberated now than before. Will Iraq fare any better? Remember, Bush isn't "into nation-building." He's more into blowin' s**t up then finding new toys to play with.

It's not just France that opposed this invasion. It's fourteen organized world religions; our closest neighbors to the north and south; and most people with real military experience. (Remember, even Powell opposed Bush on this--before being taken out back to the woodshed.) Even Bush's own pastor opposed it. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" is padded with "bought" allies (watch what happens when we stop ponying up) and countries (like Turkey) that can't wait to start carving Iraq--and/or its people--up for themselves.    

George Will may get his tiny little penis semi-hard by suggesting that refusal to get in line with Dimwit is tantamount to cowardice and treason, but that's hardly the case. And there's only one country for which this is "all about oil."

Oh, and look who's bidding for contracts to "rebuild" Iraq (after it's leveled)! A subsidiary of Halliburton! And look who's still on the payroll of Halliburton! Why, it's Dick Cheney! Well!

(Bonus question: Who was negotiating an oil deal with the Taliban right up until September 11th, 2001? Aw, you cheated.)


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: peter johnson on March 22, 2003, 02:49:14 AM
Since Afghanistan has no oil, what was the form of this oil deal being negotiated "right up until 9/11"?
In what sense did we help the Germans defeat the French in WWII?  What about Lend-Lease?
Just curious.  
There seem to me to be reasons to oppose and encourage the war, but to have George be stupid and George be crafty at the same time smacks to me of just wanting anything at all to prove the view of Wicked America/Everything's Our Fault.
Afghanistan is too freer now than before the Taliban.  You can go to movies, sing, fly kites, go to school and go out in public (If you're a woman), travel freely, etc. etc.  To cynically say that nothing has changed isn't correct or fair.  There are several woman-run human-rights organizations in Afghanistan today that could not have even existed during the time of the Taliban.
peter johnson


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Squishy on March 22, 2003, 04:12:13 AM
One detailed article on Curious Dick and The Afghanistan Deal. (http://yeoldeconsciousnessshoppe.com/art87.html) (Never mind all the money we gave the Taliban to stop growing poppies. All for nothing now, by the way.)

The Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/afghnwmn1202/)'s report on women in Afghanistan, dated December 2002. Outside of Kabul, you're still property, baby. Fly kites? Go to school? Hah.

American-Nazi connections (http://nyfma.tao.ca/nyfma02738.html) before, during, and after WWII...oh my, THAT's an interesting family connection.  

Loads of other articles, some better than others. I'm just citing these for brevity. Feel free to Google. (Or you can go over to a "conservative news outlet" and buy a book about how "Clinton Sold The Country To The Chinese Before Having Sex With Osama Bin Laden." Only thirty-nine ninety-five!!!)

Let's make one thing clear: Bush is a complete idiot. His school record reflects it; his "business career"--one failure after another, rescued every time by Poppy and his friends--reflects it; everything he says that he isn't reading directly off the teleprompter reflects it. (http://slate.msn.com/?id=76886) He is a drunk driver and an AWOL chickenhawk. People who have experience taking care of "dry" drunks and their bouts of delirium readily see that he's just about "gone" upstairs.

It is the people pulling the strings on this walking, talking Puppetoon who are crafty. Or at least, think they are--which leads us right back to "Curious Dick and The Afghanistan Deal," and "The Adventures of Little Lord Rummy and His Good Friend Saddam In The Land of Heathens."

Bush is only there because smarm is easily confused with charm, and he can read a script when lucid--and just in case the Zero-Year-Rule (http://explorers.whyte.com/curse.htm) merely skipped Reagan out of pity.


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Squishy on March 22, 2003, 04:37:00 AM
A lighter note. (http://www.comics.com/comics/monty/archive/monty-20030321.html) Seriously. (An ongoing story. The monkey's a semi-super-intelligent lab escapee. That means he can talk, but likes "Jerry Springer.")


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Squishy on March 22, 2003, 04:51:27 AM
http://www.zen15631.zen.co.uk/bb.mpg

I'm really, really sorry about the rapid-fire multipostings, but this (http://www.zen15631.zen.co.uk/bb.mpg) is PRICELESS. (Maybe I should make this my last nightly stop instead of my first, then I can get all this stuff into one post instead of three.)


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: peter johnson on March 22, 2003, 03:30:27 PM
Thankyou for your reply -- That's a lot to digest & I'm sure it'll take awhile to winnow through --
I've only just looked at the US/Nazi site.  While it makes for interesting reading, I think I already know a lot of this, and I'm even more up on the Henry Ford stuff than they seem to be.  Doesn't even mention Charles Lindbergh and the America Firsters, but I'm sure that's out there too --
What it doesn't address, really, is my question of in what sense "we", as a country, helped the Germans defeat France.  Really, a bunch of under-the-table financial dealings doesn't constitute a national policy, do you think?  Maybe it's just the wording of the statement I find puzzling -- I think it a bit of a leap to demonstrate ongoing bank-deals behind the scenes by individual corporate entities, not approved of by our government,  to actively assisting Rommel's push through the Ardennes.  But then again perhaps it just reflects our different take on things -- I do tend to want to believe the best & you seem to want to believe the worst, re. American intentions on the world stage.  You could be right, of course.  You say that history will bear you out.  Well, we'll see, won't we?
peter johnson


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Squishy on March 22, 2003, 05:28:16 PM
Well, lets get our stories straight. My original statement was: "we stood by and watched--even helped--the Nazi war machine roll over them," which can be misinterpreted. My meaning: many US entities--with the Government's knowledge and tacit approval; there was no way the Government could NOT know*--helped the Nazis when it was in their interests to do so. Not that they specifically aided them in their attack on France. They knowingly and willfully aided and abetted mass murderers for the sake of The Almighty Buck. And they've gone largely unpunished for it (in this life).

That wasn't in my history book in high school, and that's my larger point. We accuse, for example, the Japanese of glossing over their own unsavory moments in history, and that's pure hypocrisy.

Some people--there are examples on this board--want to believe that the United States is some sort of infallible, all-knowing, completely-responsible entity, personally blessed by God Himself, that SHOULD be running the world. But we're no more above the old "absolute power" saw than anyone else; we're just as given to corruption as any other country, and we musn't ever lose sight of that.

I do not claim that America is evil; I simply repeat that old adage: the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Our worst enemies come from within, and they claim to have our best interests at heart. They want you to keep watching "Friends" and leave the driving to them. Don't let them take the wheel out of your hands.

 *Large-scale "legal" and official international dealings can't be conducted outside of government scrutiny; ask da tax man. I still remember Reagan repeating "I can't recall" over and over again--and Bush The Elder claiming he was "out of the loop"--in a similar matter during their administration; cutting illegal deals with our enemies in order to make a political "score." That's entirely possible. These men had far less to do with the decision-making than the corporations that owned the men who controlled them. Again, the main perps in that crime went unpunished.


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: peter johnson on March 23, 2003, 02:16:22 AM
Seriously, thankyou very much for a lengthy and thoughtful commentary on my questions.  I really mean it.  It is, of course, patently obvious that you are a thoughtful and reflective individual who has read widely and doesn't come by your points-of-view by arbitrary adoption.
Having said that, and I do repeat here that I have not, as yet, reviewed all of your suggested websites, I still got some problems heah . . .
Now, I have to say that my inclusion of the "kite flying" thing re. the Taliban was very stupid on my part.  It is one of those things that comes out & you don't realise until later what the hell it really means, and you made no allowance for it in the first place.  
I'll stop riffing:  I spent quite a bit of time in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- as well as Turkey and Iran -- at various times from 1977 to 1979.  I was in Iran one step behind the Shah & in Afghanistan one step ahead of the Russians.  I was not in any way at that time an agent of the Government.  I was a hitch-hiking, drug & stone & fabric smuggling so-and-so hippie.  Now, much of the social fabric of Afghanistan -- especially in and around the Kabul area -- was determined by kite-flying duels -- along with camel, dog, and goat-fighting duels.   The kites -- Pakistani in design -- were square and not rectangular in shape.  The duelists would draw glue along their strings and roll them in ground glass.  This was done to create a weapon sufficient to slash the strings of the opposing kite.   It was a gambling game, as well as an excuse to chat.  This, along with Bus-ash-kashi, or "Goat Game", was one of the true groovy things that these people did.  It was the telegraph, the telephone, and the local pub, as far as local culture went.
The point is, is that this essential social activity, along with going to the movies, watching TV, listening to secular music, playing unapproved sports, listening to unapproved radio, being a woman anywhere in the company of men, shaving, or so many other similar trivial things that I simply can't list every single one, were all banned by the Taliban on pain of torture or death.
When I was in Afghanistan in 1977, it was indeed a very tribal & mysterious place.  I could fill too many pages with stories.  My clumsy point was that even though the modern Afghanistan does not approximate a modern secular Republic, its current state is far closer to where it was before the Russian invasion and WAY before the advent of the Taliban.  It is, as far as I can tell, back to where it was when I knew it, and far more succeptible to further change.
I do, in fact, appreciate your final comments very much & see them as an attempt to find a common ground.
peter johnson


Title: Re: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless
Post by: Squishy on March 23, 2003, 05:10:49 AM
A side note I keep forgetting to put up:

Waaaaaaay back when Rumsfeld shook hands with Satan--I mean, Saddam--and called him our good friend, it was Those Damn Liberals who were warning everyone about snuggling up with The Butcher of Baghdad. Conservatives replied the usual way: dismissing Those Damn Liberals as a bunch of know-nothing pointy-headed intellectual hippy-queer tree-huggers. Who cared that he gassed his own people--he hated the same people we hated...the Iranians!

The fact that überconservatives consider "intellectual" to be an insult says volumes.

Today, Those Damn Liberals are being told: sure, we made some mistakes in the past, but you didn't say anything then, la-la. And you can't criticize our actions NOW, because EIDN (Everything Is Different Now). Trust us...we won't make the same mistake again!

Here's a fun game: try to predict which of our current "allies" that we'll be pouring money or arms into--Turkey? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia (you know, where Osama and the 9-11 hijackers came from)? Someone else?--will be our NEXT big mistake.