darth_ender

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

Doesn't it annoy you when Americans try pulling out that ol' chestnut. 

Don't you hate it when Brits accuse Americans as a whole of being arrogant, then act arrogant towards Americans?

Don't you just hate it when... You're a POOPOOFACE!!

Gosh, yes, I'm tellin' ya! ;)

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said :

And our efforts in actuality have saved disproportionately far more lives.  Do you think the UK could have survived WWII without assistance?

*cough*PRESCOTT BUSH!!*cough*

(sorry I always get a sore throat when that old chestnut falls from a nutbush over the pond).

Your added joke eludes my sense of humor, I'm afraid.  I don't see what he has to do with anything.  You may have to explain it.

And I'd still like to see how our actions compare to the USS Cole or 9/11.

Okeedookee...

We over here have to ever so often put up with one of you over there telling us how we owe our freedom to the good ole US of A.

Don't get me wrong every American serviceman (and some ladies) that helped the other Allies defeat the Axis powers deserves a peck on the cheek from me should I meet them in whatever hereafter actually exists, if any.

But Americans only joined the war after Europe had already been kicked to near death and many of your number (including the father and grandfather of two of your presidents) sold arms to the Germans to help him deliver that kicking. The real reason the UK isn't part of a greater Germania is Hitler was insane.

He tried to invade Russia during the winter and the Soviets were prepared to burn their own towns and villages to starve out the Nazis.

Russia saved Britain more than America ever did but you don't hear them going on about it do you?

As for the US government blowing up innocent Arabs.

Opps!

The USSR was not interested in British salvation much, but rather in Soviet salvation.  In fact if you recall, they had signed a pact with the Third Reich agreeing not to intervene if Germany went to war with the British Empire.  I doubt they would brag about that later as they then postured themselves as Cold War enemies to the UK.

The US did enter the war late, but provided economic assistance and weapons throughout the war, then ultimately turned the tide on the West.  Without the US to provide a second front that the Brits couldn't hope to fight, Germany would have likely been far more successful on the Eastern Front.  And yes, Hitler was an idiot as well, which certainly contributed to his failure.

And as for the US blowing up innocent civilians, I won't argue with you there.  I believe I was in 8th grade at the time.  My dad said, "Finally, Clinton does something praiseworthy attacking those terrorists."  While still in my naive youthful years, I knew even then that those actions were unjustified.  Apparently the damage from that attack was far more substantial than the single lost life from the actual bombing: "tens of thousands of lost lives," according to your Wiki link.  Folks call Iraq's invasion evidence weak: this was weaker.  People say Bush is directly responsible for the loss of life in Iraq (not those who actually committed the attacks): Clinton is more directly responsible for the loss of life from the destruction of the factory.  People say Bush's motives were impure, as if they were for oil profiteering, which was unsubstantiated at the height of the theory and bear out even worse today: Clinton's motives were worse, as he was trying to cover up for his sexcapades with that woman, Miss Lewinski.  I won't justify that attack at all.  You are right.  Still for what it's worth, I wouldn't ascribe it to our ideology or as something intended to kill as many civilians as possible.  It was the selfishness of a single powerful individual who didn't realize the ramifications.  It's not morally equivalent to 9/11 or USS Cole, which were designed to kill as many innocent people as possible.

Hey, it's me. said:

Doesn't it annoy you when Americans try pulling out that ol' chestnut. 

Don't you hate it when Brits accuse Americans as a whole of being arrogant, then act arrogant towards Americans?

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

And our efforts in actuality have saved disproportionately far more lives.  Do you think the UK could have survived WWII without assistance?

The most lives would be saved if you let them surrender...

Did you read the link I provided earlier?

darth_ender said:

Or do you consider multiple chemical attacks on his own Kurdish citizens to be the actions of a responsible leader?

Do you remember what was happening to Native Americans throughout your country's history? That makes Saddam look like a good boy.

No it doesn't.  And I certainly won't apologize for that--that was a sad part of our imperfect history.  But the discussion was not who did what ever, but rather who owned and misused WMDs.  Don't change the subject without acknowledging the point.

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

Let's say that the US liberated France during WWII, but several Vichy supporters/Nazi sympathizers engaged in a protracted guerilla war, largely by dressing as civilians and attacking civilians.  Would FDR or Truman or Churchill have suddenly become war criminals because of the all the "unnecessary deaths"?  Or would the actual terrorists be guilty of anything?

I wish folks would not cite Michael Moore in their research.  Do some of your own research and come to a more balanced conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil

The US hardly benefited from Iraq's oil.  Russia and China sure did.  I find this insulting, because I think it would have been charitable of Iraq to actually try to repay the US for their liberation from Hussein, but nope.

Make no mistake, I think the Iraq invasion was a huge error in judgment.  I'm no longer a backer of it.  But I think those who try to vilify Bush are simpletons and ignoramuses who rely on far too little information and prefer to jump to hasty and unsupported conclusions to justify their hatred of him.

I'm not citing Michael Moore. I remember watching the news when the invasion began and distinctly remember the first thing that was done was securing the oil fields before they were set on fire by the Iraqis. The price of oil came down and 2 fingers were stuck up to OPEC. 

I don't recall that (I was on my mission at the time and missed a lot of news early in the war), but the reasoning more securing the fields is logical to me.  Would you want another ecological and financial disaster like that again?  And if such were truly the goal (which was clearly in our power to ensure), why are gas prices 200-250% higher now than when the war started?  And even if you recall a few little bits of information that supports your theory, I doubt you developed it on your own.  I'm confident you've had it supported by what you've viewed and read, and you haven't looked into much of anything that might contradict your theory.

We're talking 20 years ago. There's only so much of the stuff. The fact remains if there was no oil in Iraq, beyond '91 Saddam would still be in power or the country would now be in the midst of an Arab spring uprising.

I think you missed the point.  There is plenty of oil still in Iraq.  It's just that American companies do not have access to much of it, though we could have easily forcibly ensured that they would.  We gave them the freedom to spite their liberators and sell it to competitors.

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

Let's say that the US liberated France during WWII, but several Vichy supporters/Nazi sympathizers engaged in a protracted guerilla war, largely by dressing as civilians and attacking civilians.  Would FDR or Truman or Churchill have suddenly become war criminals because of the all the "unnecessary deaths"?  Or would the actual terrorists be guilty of anything?

I wish folks would not cite Michael Moore in their research.  Do some of your own research and come to a more balanced conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil

The US hardly benefited from Iraq's oil.  Russia and China sure did.  I find this insulting, because I think it would have been charitable of Iraq to actually try to repay the US for their liberation from Hussein, but nope.

Make no mistake, I think the Iraq invasion was a huge error in judgment.  I'm no longer a backer of it.  But I think those who try to vilify Bush are simpletons and ignoramuses who rely on far too little information and prefer to jump to hasty and unsupported conclusions to justify their hatred of him.

I'm not citing Michael Moore. I remember watching the news when the invasion began and distinctly remember the first thing that was done was securing the oil fields before they were set on fire by the Iraqis. The price of oil came down and 2 fingers were stuck up to OPEC. 

I don't recall that (I was on my mission at the time and missed a lot of news early in the war), but the reasoning more securing the fields is logical to me.  Would you want another ecological and financial disaster like that again?  And if such were truly the goal (which was clearly in our power to ensure), why are gas prices 200-250% higher now than when the war started?  And even if you recall a few little bits of information that supports your theory, I doubt you developed it on your own.  I'm confident you've had it supported by what you've viewed and read, and you haven't looked into much of anything that might contradict your theory.

Some information on the cancelled 6th season.  Seems legitimate to me.

http://www.starwarsunderworld.com/2013/06/clone-wars-writer-gives-details-about.html

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said :

And our efforts in actuality have saved disproportionately far more lives.  Do you think the UK could have survived WWII without assistance?

*cough*PRESCOTT BUSH!!*cough*

(sorry I always get a sore throat when that old chestnut falls from a nutbush over the pond).

Your added joke eludes my sense of humor, I'm afraid.  I don't see what he has to do with anything.  You may have to explain it.

And I'd still like to see how our actions compare to the USS Cole or 9/11.

Bingowings said:

Stop calling me a Liberal like it's some sort of insult Big love.

:)

I'm not using it like an insult.  I'm characterizing those on the far end of the spectrum.  But I genuinely do like your comeback.  I just think those on the far end tend to follow certain patterns of thought, and I'm trying to point out those perceived patterns.

Hey, it's me. said:

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

Let's say that the US liberated France during WWII, but several Vichy supporters/Nazi sympathizers engaged in a protracted guerilla war, largely by dressing as civilians and attacking civilians.  Would FDR or Truman or Churchill have suddenly become war criminals because of the all the "unnecessary deaths"?  Or would the actual terrorists be guilty of anything?

I wish folks would not cite Michael Moore in their research.  Do some of your own research and come to a more balanced conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil

The US hardly benefited from Iraq's oil.  Russia and China sure did.  I find this insulting, because I think it would have been charitable of Iraq to actually try to repay the US for their liberation from Hussein, but nope.

Make no mistake, I think the Iraq invasion was a huge error in judgment.  I'm no longer a backer of it.  But I think those who try to vilify Bush are simpletons and ignoramuses who rely on far too little information and prefer to jump to hasty and unsupported conclusions to justify their hatred of him.

Bingowings said:

So you agree with Warb that the Afghans and Iraqi civilians killed and injured and suffering from loss of infrastructure have only themselves to blame for being in the same country as people of interest?

And you don't see any point of similarity between Arab/Muslim terrorists killing civilians in Western cities?

It's funny that libs are so anti-racist, yet they still tend to lump into groups.  I never said Afghans or Iraqis have themselves to blame, and only those who fail to see individuals but rather a group as a whole would assume that's what is going on.  I said Al-qaeda in Iraq is to blame.  I could also point to other groups, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, Iranian Quds forces in Iraq, etc.  See, these are militant groups.  And they are comprised of violent and evil individuals.  I blame those individuals and the groups that espouse those evil beliefs.  They attack their fellow citizens.  They killed far more civilians than any Americans did; I don't think attributing 99% of all civilian deaths in those two wars to those evil groups would be very inaccurate.

As much as liberals may hate to admit it, it's the Muslim terrorists that are killing civilians, both in Western and Middle Eastern cities.

What makes someone a war criminal?

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

here is what I should have said yesterday:

the world trade center bombing in 1993

the embassy bombings

the USS Cole

911

what were we supposed to do?   how long were supposed to let this crap continue?  Who many Americans were we supposed to let die before we did something about it?   What would you have done about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?  just let them get away with it?  You've never answered that.

As for the the families and friends of those that died in the war in Afghanistan, perhaps they ought to be asking why the regimes there were harboring terrorists.    The people in charge of Afghanistan were not good people.   But maybe we should have tried harder to find a way to do what needed to be down with causing so many civilian deaths.

I could with ease do one of my parody misquotes replacing every terrorist event you listed with an outrage against Arabs and Muslims and swapping America and Afghanistan around.

It would be very cold comfort indeed to the families of the people who died in 9/11 to say to them, "Maybe you shouldn't have voted for that sort of leader".

Especially as some of those countries didn't have leaders or votes at the time.

Please do.  We're all in the mood for a jolly laugh.  And make sure you demonstrate that the actions are morally equivalent and represent the actions of our government and not just some rogue morons. 

Look, I understand that it's good to question and be skeptical and not just accept everything the government spoon feeds, but it seems like the most liberal folks think they have to take whatever is common sense and immediately assume the exact opposite is true, then seek weak evidence to support their theories.

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Oh you thought he had weapons of mass destruction. So what if he did (he didn't anyway)? You have weapons of mass destruction.

some nations can be trusted with wmds,  Iraq under Saddam was not one of them. 

And you will be the judge of that?

You Americans are every bit as stupid and arrogant as people usually say you are. No offence.

Said someone who has demonstrably shown himself to be stupid and arrogant in this very conversation.  No offense (American spelling is better :P).

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

 Or millions of people around the world suffering because of your foreign policy and military invasions.

yeah, sure it is all the fault of the big bad US, and Saddam and Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have nothing to do with it.   what bullshit.

What does Saddam has to do with South East Asia in 60' and 70', for example?

I didn't know you were talking about South East Asia in 60's and and 70's. 

I was talking in general.

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Oh and talking about Saddam... can you remind me why exactly did you invade Iraq?

He was an evil dictator that murdered many of his own people, certainly kept them oppressed, and we though he had wmds.   For all we know he did have wmds and disposed of them or sent them somewhere else before we could stop him.    I am not sure we should have gone into Iraq, what I do know is that Saddam was a bad guy and would have developed wmds and used them against the US, if he could have. 

Well decisions of your leaders caused unproportionally more deaths around the world than that of Saddam.

And our efforts in actuality have saved disproportionately far more lives.  Do you think the UK could have survived WWII without assistance?

Oh you thought he had weapons of mass destruction. So what if he did (he didn't anyway)? You have weapons of mass destruction. And many other nations have them (including North Korea). Yet in the history, you remain the only nation who used nuclear weapons on other nation (on civilians to be precise).

Not exactly willy-nilly, and if you read any balanced view, our attack likely saved far more lives, especially American lives.  Other nations have sworn to use them far more liberally, while we with our much greater capacity, have demonstrated extreme restraint.  Saddam did not.  Or do you consider multiple chemical attacks on his own Kurdish citizens to be the actions of a responsible leader?

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said: Yet in the history, you remain the only nation who used nuclear weapons on other nation (on civilians to be precise).

and haven't done so in 68 years, despite having some many enemies since then.    And the reason we did it 68 years was to a avoid having to invade mainland Japan which would have cost countless lives on both sides. 

Do not give me that crap... Japan wanted to surrender under a condition to keep the Emperor. You bombed their cities to test the effects of the bomb on real population and to show off in front of USSR. Then after you bombed them you let them keep the Emperor... So much about the "unacceptable" condition...

*ahem*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombing_of_japan#Debate_over_bombings

adywan said:

I still can't believe that, after posting the fleet reveal a couple of times, not one single person has commented on the deliberate error i added just to see how observant people really are (although it can be forgiven thanks to the faded GOUT and the terrible colours of the Blu-Ray). So, come on guys, what is wrong in the reveal scene? ;)

I wouldn't have noticed anything without you prompting me to look, but perchance is it the very blue TIE Bomber?  And if so, do I get a prize? ;)

ImperialFighter is having trouble getting screenshots, so he asked me to grab the following three from Adywan's clip so he could comment on them.  I don't have a clue what he plans to say, but here you go, Fighter :)

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/313.php

Most Iranians were not fond of him.

According the following link, it looks like he maintained a limited working relationship...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_ideology_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Jews.2C_Christians.2C_and_Shia_Muslims

...but he certainly considered them heretical, and I doubt he would have been content to live among them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Beliefs_and_ideology

And in spite of the official stance of the Iranian government, many Iranians are pro-US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Divide_between_public_opinion_and_state_policy

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

Warbler said:

Hey, it's me. said:

Bin Laden could've disappeared for the rest of his days if he wished. He would never have been found. And where does he eventually end up being discovered ten years later? In a mansion in Pakistan watching TV. Nope I just don't buy it. Why not Iran? Plenty of sympathisers there who would've made sure he would've permanently disappeared.

I am sure he had people in Pakistan helping him.  He probably thought we've never send troops into Pakistan and so he thought he was safe. 

That's a very nonchalant thought from the worlds most wanted man. Iran was, and still is, a no go country for America. Your telling me after 10 years he became mildly blasé about the hunt for him and thought,'nah. Ill be alright here.' . ?

I've lost a lot of interest in this thread, but I will jump in and comment here.  Not all Muslims are the same.  Bin Laden was a very strict Sunni who once said that Afghanistan (prior to the fall of the Taliban, and also Sunni) was the only truly Islamic nation on earth.  Iran is a Shi'ite nation, and in fact thinks itself the keeper of the faith, as no other Shi'ite nation or ethnicity is as powerful or populous.  Pakistan was much more in line with his bin Laden's ideology, while Iran was not fond of him.  They were very different brands of Muslim (remember, most of the violence in Iraq was between Sunnis and Shi'ites), and bin Laden chose the one that he could see eye to eye with.

When it comes to being a Muslim enemy of America there are no divisions. Did the Shi'ites openly condemn 9/11 and distance themselves from Bin Laden? The whole thing was a Sunni deal and it doesn't concern us? They could've harboured him to ths very day and America would still be scratching its head asking,'where the fuck is he?'

'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is not a universal axiom.  I assure you, bin Laden would not have been safe, nor would he have been content to be in Iran.  When his mission is Islamic purity, why would he go to the nation that represents the greatest heresies in his mind?  His mission was quite religious, not just political, and Iran was little better than the US.  I'm not just talking out my backside here.  You're just speculating.

Hey, it's me. said:

The fact is the US and Pakistan have relations. Iran may aswell be North Korea to America. It's a no go country, even for covert operations. Shit it don't take much working out for an internationally wanted man no 1 on the list.

Relations with this country are almost entirely based on our monetary aid.  Most Pakistanis hate us, the government is not fond of us, but they appreciate the very hefty annual check they get from the United States.  Pakistan has not exactly acted as a true friend in numerous ways, not just in their probable hiding of bin Laden.  For years they allowed Taliban soldiers to train in their territory and cross into Afghanistan in order to attack American troops, and when they finally took action, it never seemed to be particularly thorough.  Pakistan was a great place for him to hide.

Hey, it's me. said:

Warbler said:

Hey, it's me. said:

Bin Laden could've disappeared for the rest of his days if he wished. He would never have been found. And where does he eventually end up being discovered ten years later? In a mansion in Pakistan watching TV. Nope I just don't buy it. Why not Iran? Plenty of sympathisers there who would've made sure he would've permanently disappeared.

I am sure he had people in Pakistan helping him.  He probably thought we've never send troops into Pakistan and so he thought he was safe. 

That's a very nonchalant thought from the worlds most wanted man. Iran was, and still is, a no go country for America. Your telling me after 10 years he became mildly blasé about the hunt for him and thought,'nah. Ill be alright here.' . ?

I've lost a lot of interest in this thread, but I will jump in and comment here.  Not all Muslims are the same.  Bin Laden was a very strict Sunni who once said that Afghanistan (prior to the fall of the Taliban, and also Sunni) was the only truly Islamic nation on earth.  Iran is a Shi'ite nation, and in fact thinks itself the keeper of the faith, as no other Shi'ite nation or ethnicity is as powerful or populous.  Pakistan was much more in line with his bin Laden's ideology, while Iran was not fond of him.  They were very different brands of Muslim (remember, most of the violence in Iraq was between Sunnis and Shi'ites), and bin Laden chose the one that he could see eye to eye with.

Mrebo said:

Is Dune something I should know about?

Dune is considered by many to be the greatest sci-fi novel of all time.  It won the Hugo and Nebula awards and has inspired a number of other science-fiction authors.  Tatooine, spice, and a number of other elements are likely derivatives of Dune plot elements.  The book is rich in its development of another culture, another time, other worlds.  I recommend it to anyone who loves science-fiction.

You should at least read the first one.  It really is wonderful.  But you should probably relearn to read before that.

I am genuinely smiling.  Please read the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war#Background_to_1949

US supporting a friendly existing government with military intervention.

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

Aid but not military intervention to support existing government.