UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> Bush attacks Obama


5/15/08 5:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Fraser
46 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 50052

 Talking to people is a stupid way to solve disagreements.

5/15/08 5:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ThugLife
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/18/04
Posts: 5967
Youre right fraser. A swift preemptive kick in the ass works wonders!
5/15/08 5:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18835
Talking to people is a stupid way to solve disagreements.

"People are always asking me: Jim, why are you stabbing me?"
5/15/08 5:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Shawn C
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/6/01
Posts: 34933
*holds a press conference to air my criticism of Fraser*
5/15/08 5:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sonicbionic
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/22/02
Posts: 10605
Bush supports terrorism by not directing more funding to be spent on alternative fuels, thereby maintaining our dependency on foreign oil, the proceeds of which end up in the coffers of various terrorist organizations. Of course "conservatives" will vehemently deny that terrorists get money from oil profits, because admitting it's true would require them taking Big Oil's cock out of their mouth long enough to find a solution.

Wouldn't not talking to them just lead to prolonged posturing on both sides till potentially there's a war? I guess I just don't see the negative to just talkin'.
There's not a negative to just talking. The problem is, "conservatives" (or "libertarians," as Information likes to erroneously and humorously refer to himself) are just too fucking stupid to understand that we can bomb the living shit out of them if diplomacy fails. For some reason "conservatives" are unable to get it through their devoid-of-absolutely-any-foresight peabrains that just because we start a dialogue with someone, it doesn't mean that ALL we can do from then on is talk.
5/15/08 7:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18838
Bush supports terrorism by not directing more funding to be spent on alternative fuels, thereby maintaining our dependency on foreign oil, the proceeds of which end up in the coffers of various terrorist organizations.

As much as I think you're a d-bag, effeminate, Al Franken-look alike who has no redeeming qualities, I think you're half-way right. I'd of course include the Congress in the circle of blame (I don't think we need to rehash the budget process, do we?), but that's splitting hairs.

There is no reason for us not to undertake every possible effort to find a cheap and reliable alternative to carbon-based fuels.

Of course "conservatives" will vehemently deny that terrorists get money from oil profits, because admitting it's true would require them taking Big Oil's cock out of their mouth long enough to find a solution.

OK, please diagram completely the way "Big Oil" funnels money to terrorists. Explain, exactly, how oil profits flow from "Big Oil" to terrorists.

I can understand how money flows from the owners of the good to terrorists, but not from the production side.

There's not a negative to just talking.

This is the problem with many modern liberals. They've deluded themselves into believing that there are static ideas such as "just talking". In order to accomplish anything in negotiations both parties have to have an interest in a mutually beneficial outcome. At this point there is ZERO impetus on Iran's part to acheive an outcome where the United States can enjoy a peaceful and stable Middle East. Iran will not be satisfied with anything less than regional dominance and it is not afraid to use violence to acheive it.

So what, exactly, would you like to just say? "Golly gee Iran, please stop killing US soldiers, Iraqi civilians, violently supporting a non-state entity's assault on Lebanon,"? Is that what you'd like to "just say", sonicbionic?

The problem is, "conservatives" (or "libertarians," as Information likes to erroneously and humorously refer to himself)...

I think we went over this last time you decided to crawl out from whatever rock it is you hide under-- I'm not a libertarian, nor have I ever claimed to be one. I challenged you to find a quote where I claimed to be one and you ran away like the cowardly little punk that you are.

Shall we have a repeat performance?

...are just too fucking stupid to understand that we can bomb the living shit out of them if diplomacy fails.

I guess that wouldn't be "JUST talking" to them, would it? Further, I said the following: "Here's a simple solution-- once Iran stops killing Americans we will open any and all diplomatic channels necessary to acheive a peaceful co-existence. Until that point, we will simply repeat our demand in the most measured way possible." That you can't tell that my statement is essentially what you just stated is a sad commentary on the reading ability of what would otherwise be considered an adult.

Should I make some sort of commentary on how femme "liberal" jackasses are too stupid to understand the words I write?
5/15/08 7:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Fraser
46 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 50056

 Sure, why not.


Or better yet, stop posting and when somebody writes something you disagree with just go bomb their house.

5/15/08 7:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18841
Or better yet, stop posting and when somebody writes something you disagree with just go bomb their house.

If the other poster was busy killing my friends and family I'd certainly entertain the notion.

Why don't you stick with talking things out and let the people who are interested in keeping murderous jerkoffs from being murderous do their thing?

My impression of Fraser as he's being stabbed by a mugger:

"No, really, we can find a peaceful solution to this. Were you beaten as a child?"
5/15/08 8:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Trust
654 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 45860

 lol @ "attacks" Obama. 


Oh no, someone disagrees with His Husseinness, STOP ATTACKING OBAMA!!

5/15/08 9:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
tiBach
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/12/05
Posts: 4
Info, interesting posts though I disagree strongly on many points. Not directed at you but I feel it is a grave misfortune that for the most part in the national conversation about Iran right now, the history of Iranian-American affairs begins with the hostage crisis. This is but one element among many contributing to a wildly narrow perspective on US-Iran affairs. Interesting to me how indignant many Americans are that Iran won't accept terms we would never accept ourselves under any circumstaces.

Making blanket statements about 'modern liberals' as though you've crawled into the collective head of the left is silly and laughably presumptious, but that aside I'd like to make a point or two.

"In order to accomplish anything in negotiations both parties have to have an interest in a mutually beneficial outcome. At this point Iran will not be satisfied with anything less than regional dominance and it is not afraid to use violence to acheive it."

True enough though I'd say we've proven ourselves to be just as apt if not more so to use violence in attempts to achieve regional dominance. But consider this from the perspective of say, Iran. And consider the history of the region. When has there ever been even relative peace in the middle-east that was not facilitated by a strong, single and most importantly, local, governing entity? Foreign rule and more pertinently foreign meddling has resulted in nothing but ceaseless violence for trifling economic gain from the Greco-Roman era through the middle ages and imperial era on into the post colonial period. Very arrogant to think we can broker some kind of lasting regional harmony through either force or negotiation.

As to your point that "there is ZERO impetus on Iran's part to acheive an outcome where the United States can enjoy a peaceful and stable Middle East," I don't believe that to be accurate. I am of the opinion that modern Iran would like nothing more than to reap huge profits selling us oil, but would prefer to do so without being under the thumb of the whim of a belligerent foreign power, American-based multinational energy companies and the constant threat of military force.

But, might I ask why Iran would want the United States to 'enjoy a peaceful and stable middle-east'? What people would kowtow to the idea that a power from literally the other side of the world can govern the affairs of their region better than they can or allow them a free hand in exploiting their region? And how could an Iranian keep himself from laughing hysterically at the idea that our goal is a 'peaceful and stable middle-east' when their are western armies on two of their borders and smaller forces in many of the other surrounding countries?

Moving on.

"Here's a simple solution-- once Iran stops killing Americans we will open any and all diplomatic channels necessary to acheive a peaceful co-existence. Until that point, we will simply repeat our demand in the most measured way possible."

This makes no sense. So we cannot talk about the possiblity of 'peaceful coexistence' until they have achieved peaceful coexistence with us? To me it seems much of this talk about Iran killing Americans is posturing and desperate propaganda at its worst. I'm not saying I don't believe weapons from Iran and insurgents trained in Iran haven't killed Americans in Iraq. It is silly to think that conflicts are contained within artificial and foreign drawn national borders and childish scapegoating to try to place the blame for our struggles in Iraq on Iranian influence. We are hamstrung by the way borders are drawn, not the people who actually live there. Reeks of the broadening of the Vietnam war to Cambodia and Laos, except those countries didn't have any deterrent to hinder us and no platform to condemn us, as Iran does. I will say we aren't in a position to be taken seriously while lecturing other countries on arming and training disruptive non-government rebel groups but that is another discussion.

"OK, please diagram completely the way "Big Oil" funnels money to terrorists. Explain, exactly, how oil profits flow from "Big Oil" to terrorists.

I can understand how money flows from the owners of the good to terrorists, but not from the production side."

If you're positive that the government of Iran is responsible for killing US soldiers this shouldn't be too hard. Both require a similar amount of steps. Let me help.

'Big oil' buys said oil from sketchy Saudi dudes. Sketchy Saudi dudes in turn give money to any number of terrorist groups who in turn kill Americans. Therefore 'big oil' kills American soldiers and civilians.

If you think that 'big oil' is absolved of blame because there is a phenomenally wealthy middle-eastern guy slanging oil to finance terrorism (ironically against the country hes selling it to) acting as a go between that allows 'big oil' and those who want to excuse them to wash their hands of their money being used by terrorists then that is unfortunate.

Theres much MUCH more to say, but I'm hungry and I doubt anyone will make it this far anyway.

I'll just say analogies involving muggers and bullshit like that are stupid. These are nations we are talking about and childish, playground levels of diplomacy shouldn't be brought into the conversation.
5/15/08 10:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Shawn C
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/6/01
Posts: 34943
Trust -  lol @ "attacks" Obama. 

Oh no, someone disagrees with His Husseinness, STOP ATTACKING OBAMA!!
Bush went beyond disagreement.

He accused him of being a terrorist appeaser, and implied that he would've been a Nazi appeaser.

That's beyond the pale.
5/16/08 12:42 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sonicbionic
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/22/02
Posts: 10606
Oh, and did I mention that the conservative poster boy Reagan negotiated with Iran? That's something else conservatives don't like to talk about.
5/16/08 12:53 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
hubris
202 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 66937
John McCain would have to disagree with you on that one! Reagan? He negotiated with no one.


“Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'’ Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. “I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'’
5/16/08 9:14 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18844
Interesting to me how indignant many Americans are that Iran won't accept terms we would never accept ourselves under any circumstaces.

What terms are those?

Making blanket statements about 'modern liberals' as though you've crawled into the collective head of the left is silly and laughably presumptious, but that aside I'd like to make a point or two.

As a liberal myself I have often to draw a dividing line between what I believe was once great about my ideology and what a wing of the ideology has made the term "liberal" signify. So when I use the term "modern liberal" I speak specifically about the liberal who refuses to accept that at time negotiation is impossible (such as when you or yours are being attacked or murdered), who touts plurality but only has room for their ideology (such as the unneeded and childish attacks on President Bush) and one who is more concerned with the appearance of what is just than actual justice (such as moaning about the inhumanity of Hussein's regime but doing nothing to support it's elimination). In other words, I can best be currently described as a Lieberman liberal-- a man who served his party faithfully for decades until he disagreed on one overarching issue. Which promptly led to his attempted ouster and ostracization.

True enough though I'd say we've proven ourselves to be just as apt if not more so to use violence in attempts to achieve regional dominance.

Only Iran will benefit from Iran's dominance in the region. You cannot say the same for the US, as it is fighting to implement a system that the world can plug into and utilize. A system where negotiation is possible, if not the only course of action whereby stability can be maintained. Iran does not, and can not, offer that type of system.

Very arrogant to think we can broker some kind of lasting regional harmony through either force or negotiation.

I see your point, but I am always hesitant to sign onto and accept arguments that hinge ONLY on historical analysis. After all, if we were to believe that the only state of existence possible is the state of existence that preceded us Europe would still be in flames. Think about that-- what you are describing can quite aptly be used to describe Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. A region where peace is acheived only when a single powerful leader (whether that be a person or a nation) viciously takes the reins and leads it there.

I am of the opinion that modern Iran would like nothing more than to reap huge profits selling us oil, but would prefer to do so without being under the thumb of the whim of a belligerent foreign power, American-based multinational energy companies and the constant threat of military force.

Then we disagree. There is nothing in Iran's history or current posture to indicate that they are willing or wanting of a power sharing agreement with anyone but a fellow dictatorial nation (Syria). We're talking about a nation that has deliberately killed Americans and deliberately supported the killing of Americans-- primarily because we support a nation with vast ideological differences (Israel) and because we attempted to stop massive bloodshed (Lebanon).

Further, I honestly believe that any reference to multinational energy companies as a villain in this scenario is shortsighted and indicative of a lack of true understanding of the region. MNC's that operate in the region operate in conjunction with the governments of the region. This isn't MNC's running wild and taking power from poor, innocent shepherds. This is a set of intelligent, powerful government officials using MNC's to acheive what they believe is best for them and their country.

And how could an Iranian keep himself from laughing hysterically at the idea that our goal is a 'peaceful and stable middle-east' when their are western armies on two of their borders and smaller forces in many of the other surrounding countries?

That Iranian could start by thinking. The US is not, despite the hype, a colonial power. We have no vested interest in making the region solely an American protectorate. Rather, we are attempting to "bridge the gap" by bringing the region into the world system where EVERY nation can partake in exploiting, and being exploited by, the region.

This makes no sense. So we cannot talk about the possiblity of 'peaceful coexistence' until they have achieved peaceful coexistence with us?

I hate to break it to you, but just because someone isn't killing you it doesn't mean you are enjoying a peaceful coexistence. Unless, of course, you'd be peurile enough to insist that we currently enjoy peaceful coexistence with other nations that currently aren't killing Americans-- Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Burma. You wouldn't be that shallow of intellect, would you?

To me it seems much of this talk about Iran killing Americans is posturing and desperate propaganda at its worst.

Then you are wrong, and you basically ignore your own admonition from above. Iran's dealings with America did not start with our invasion of Iraq and neither did it's practice of murdering US citizens, soldiers and employees. I am speaking specifically of Beirut, William F. Buckley, Khobar Towers, etc. Are their deaths "propaganda", or is there at least some measure of intelligence left in America's critics?


'Big oil' buys said oil from sketchy Saudi dudes. Sketchy Saudi dudes in turn give money to any number of terrorist groups who in turn kill Americans. Therefore 'big oil' kills American soldiers and civilians.

OK. So in your ideology, blame is transitive. Allow me to add an extra step in your transitive process-- US citizens buy processed fuel from "Big Oil". Now your narrative is the following:

US citizens buy processed fuel from "Big Oil". Big oil' buys said oil from sketchy Saudi dudes. Sketchy Saudi dudes in turn give money to any number of terrorist groups who in turn kill Americans. Therefore Americans kill American soldiers and civilians.


Do I really need to illuminate how shallow and devoid of thought such a sentiment is?

I'll just say analogies involving muggers and bullshit like that are stupid. These are nations we are talking about and childish, playground levels of diplomacy shouldn't be brought into the conversation

Bullshit. It is the best way possible to break the concept of "just talking" down into it's basic parts and reveal just how utterly out of touch with reality some people are.
5/16/08 9:16 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18845
Oh, and did I mention that the conservative poster boy Reagan negotiated with Iran? That's something else conservatives don't like to talk about.

Why am I not surprised that sonicbionic once again tucked tail and ran away from his claims like the little punk that he is?

Don't worry, dude. There's a place in Hollywood for celebrity impressions and I'm sure there's at least one idiot tourist who would pay to see you dance around like Al Franken's ghey twin.
5/16/08 9:39 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ABE FROMAN
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/15/02
Posts: 40803

 Jesuz Frat!



5/16/08 10:02 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18852
I got tired writing it. I can't imagine anyone other than tiBach reading it.
5/16/08 11:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Keoni
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 20438
Bush is such a douche cunt. Most presidents who have fucked up as badly as him (not many) try to save their legacy by doing something late in their final term that actually has substance. About the best thing he could do is be forgotten, but he cant even do that. Worst president in history. Now come on all you bible banging fags, jump out and defend your nerdy hillbilly president like he has NEVER made a bad decision. LOL.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.