defrancoization

  • Thread starter Callistus Valer
  • Start date



Status
Not open for further replies.
> So the liberal media has done an about-face and chosen not to cover
anti-war
> protests? The protests are driven by people who simply don't like Bush, Republicans, etc.....and
> would oppose ANY policy he chose to pursue.

Perhaps they're driven by people (e.g. the UN) who think this war is going to be a rather bad idea.
On the other hand the President of the United States is a ****** (www.bushisawanker.com) so it's not
too surprising that people are ****** off with him.
 
"Frank Tantillo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The British Parliament supported using force to remove Saddam by an overwhelming majority. Make
> your views known in the voting
booth......this
> is how a democracy works.
>

Frank, which voting booth? When have we been given an opportunity to make a choice through a
free vote? The reason there have been protests and marches is because we *have not* been given
that chance.
 
Okay, I'll bite......what do you mean by a "free vote" and why have we never been given the chance
to have one?

"Rob Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Frank Tantillo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The British Parliament supported using force to remove Saddam by an overwhelming majority. Make
> > your views known in the voting
> booth......this
> > is how a democracy works.
> >
>
> Frank, which voting booth? When have we been given an opportunity to make
a
> choice through a free vote? The reason there have been protests and
marches
> is because we *have not* been given that chance.
>
 
I just mean what do the people of a country have to do in order for their views to be acknowledged?
How can we "NO"? If your PM is dragging the country into doing something they don't want, how do you
stop them? That's what I mean. You can't stop them.

You wrote: "The British Parliament supported using force to remove Saddam by an overwhelming
majority. Make your views known in the voting booth......this is how a democracy works."

I'm not convinced how real this is. How many were pushed along to the "yes" box? To what extent are
they just putting up a united front? If each MP voted the way his constituency would like then I
seriously doubt if we'd have ended up with an "overwhelming majority". This clearly didn't happen.
So we mount the largest public demonstration ever held in the UK and Cabinet dismiss it with
desperately childish arguments. How can the people make their views known and have them acknowledged
and taken into consideration? Apparently we can't do this. Sure, Blair goes on TV and gives
"reasons" why we need to go war. But I've yet to hear one that makes any sense. None of this makes
any sense on any level. That's what I don't like.

See what I mean?
 
"Rob Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> If each MP voted the way his constituency would like then I seriously doubt if we'd have ended up
> with an "overwhelming majority". This clearly didn't happen. So we mount the largest public
> demonstration ever held in the UK and
Cabinet
> dismiss it with desperately childish arguments. How can the people make their views known and have
> them acknowledged and taken into consideration? Apparently we can't do this. Sure, Blair goes on
> TV and gives "reasons"
why
> we need to go war. But I've yet to hear one that makes any sense. None of this makes any sense on
> any level. That's what I don't like.
>
> See what I mean?

Rob could use a primer on the principles and propriety of a representative democracy.
 
"Frank Tantillo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The polls clearly contradict your statement.
>
> Answer this question though - was Clinton justified in his UNILATERAL bombing of Iraq? The Sudan?
> Military action in Bosnia? Somalia?

George Bush Sr. 'invaded' Somalia 2 weeks before he left office, leaving his successor with a nasty
little problem.

> Why is it that you are against this military action and not the others mentioned above? If you are
> like most democrats in this country - you'd oppose any policy pursued by this administration (even
> though a majority
of
> democratic congressmen and senators voted for using force against Iraq)......How would you solve
> this Hussein issue? The terrorism threat?

Hussein isn't a terrorist, he's a dictator. He is on the Al Qaeda hit list, just like every single
other regime in the region.

The only government which met Al Qaeda's standard was The Taliban.

Al Qaeda's ultimate goal is to rid the region of all the current regimes and make the Middle East
into one big pan-Islamist state.

The problem with Saddam is he is a threat to his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc). He
isn't a threat to the United States.

All of you dumbasses who make Saddam a threat to the United States make me laugh. He (even with our
help) lost a war to Iran for God's Sake.
 
On 3/8/03 1:13 PM, in article [email protected], "Rob Campbell"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> Iraq)......How would you solve this Hussein issue? The terrorism threat?
>
> "the Hussein issue" is overblown and not directly related to the terrorist threat. Bin Laden is
> driven through being a fanatical Muslim and Sadam is atheist.

?? That¹s why he prays in Mosques every day...........

The way America throws it's weight about in the Middle East is what
> caused the anti-American feelings which led to 9/11. Bulldozing Iraq is in no way going to reduce
> the chances of future terrorist attacks. If anything it will increase religious fanaticism
> cross-cultural misunderstanding which led to these attacks in the first place.
>
Obviously you never listened to your mommy when she said "2 wrongs do not make a right!!"
 
Frank Tantillo wrote:

> Answer this question though - was Clinton justified in his UNILATERAL bombing of Iraq? The Sudan?
> Military action in Bosnia? Somalia?

No, he wasn't. There was concern and there were protests elsewhere.

>
> Iraq)......How would you solve this Hussein issue? The terrorism threat?

What is "the Hussein issue" and why is it a dramatic priority at this time? (I'm not trying to be
obtuse or facetious, I'm interested in what you think the problem is.)

In one sense, time will solve the "Hussein issue", same as it solved the "Castro issue". He will get
old, he will die, guaranteed. What is the immediate and pressing hurry that requires him to be
removed this year? STF
 
"Rob Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > So the liberal media has done an about-face and chosen not to cover
> anti-war
> > protests? The protests are driven by people who simply don't like Bush, Republicans, etc.....and
> > would oppose ANY policy he chose to pursue.
>
> Perhaps they're driven by people (e.g. the UN) who think this war is going to be a rather bad
> idea. On the other hand the President of the United States is a ****** (www.bushisawanker.com) so
> it's not too surprising that people are ****** off with him.
>
>

I think it's hilarious when people use childish emotional expressions like "******" to describe
their own little frustrations. Show us the data that describes where the majority of Americans are
"****** off with him". Sure there are a few folks both democratic and republican that do not want
war but my firends it is not the majority; in fact it is not even a majority on the liberal side
of congress.

Lastly, please take your political frustrations elsewhere. There are plenty of places you can go
discuss this where it is pertinnent; not here.

Danny Callen
 
"Dumbass?" Is that best you could come up with?

Perhaps if you'd read my post you would've answered the questions asked instead of assuming that I
said Hussein was a direct and immediate threat to the United States. Of course, you offer no
plausible solution to the issues currently facing the Bush Administration. Were you asleep when
the latest Bin Laden message asked Iraqis to carry out "suicide attacks on Americans?" Common
enemies band peoples, with ideologies that are seemingly opposed, together (USA and the USSR in
1943 for example).

"Hussein isn't a terrorist?" Compensating the families of palestinian suicide bombers doesn't
constitute terrorism? Financially supporting Hamas and Islamic Jihad doesn't constitute terrorism?
Does Hussein have to board a commuter bus in Tel Aviv with a bomb in his hands for you to call him a
terrorist?

So come on, answer the questions .....what would you do about the Iraq issue? Did you have a problem
with Clinton committing troops to Bosnia? His launching a missile attack on Baghdad?

You, and others like you would be against any policy put forth by this administration.......again,
what do you suggest we do?

You clearly have no answers..........don't even bother trying again..............you're an idiot.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Frank Tantillo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The polls clearly contradict your statement.
> >
> > Answer this question though - was Clinton justified in his UNILATERAL bombing of Iraq? The
> > Sudan? Military action in Bosnia? Somalia?
>
>
> George Bush Sr. 'invaded' Somalia 2 weeks before he left office, leaving
his
> successor with a nasty little problem.
>
>
> > Why is it that you are against this military action and not the others mentioned above? If you
> > are like most democrats in this country - you'd oppose any policy pursued by this administration
> > (even though a majority
> of
> > democratic congressmen and senators voted for using force against Iraq)......How would you solve
> > this Hussein issue? The terrorism
threat?
>
>
> Hussein isn't a terrorist, he's a dictator. He is on the Al Qaeda hit
list,
> just like every single other regime in the region.
>
> The only government which met Al Qaeda's standard was The Taliban.
>
> Al Qaeda's ultimate goal is to rid the region of all the current regimes
and
> make the Middle East into one big pan-Islamist state.
>
> The problem with Saddam is he is a threat to his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc). He
> isn't a threat to the United States.
>
> All of you dumbasses who make Saddam a threat to the United States make me laugh. He (even with
> our help) lost a war to Iran for God's Sake.
 
On 3/8/03 4:13 PM, in article [email protected], "Danny Callen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Rob Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> So the liberal media has done an about-face and chosen not to cover
>> anti-war
>>> protests? The protests are driven by people who simply don't like Bush, Republicans, etc.....and
>>> would oppose ANY policy he chose to pursue.
>>
>> Perhaps they're driven by people (e.g. the UN) who think this war is going to be a rather bad
>> idea. On the other hand the President of the United States is a ****** (www.bushisawanker.com) so
>> it's not too surprising that people are ****** off with him.
>>
>>
>
> I think it's hilarious when people use childish emotional expressions like "******" to describe
> their own little frustrations. Show us the data that describes where the majority of Americans are
> "****** off with him". Sure there are a few folks both democratic and republican that do not want
> war but my firends it is not the majority; in fact it is not even a majority on the liberal side
> of congress.
>
> Lastly, please take your political frustrations elsewhere. There are plenty of places you can go
> discuss this where it is pertinnent; not here.
>
> Danny Callen
>
>
Alt.I.am.a.whiney.liberal
 
"Frank Tantillo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Perhaps we should've let the Japanese keep moving in the Pacific back in
the
> forties.....surely Australia and New Zealand would've fallen quite easily. It's easy to take pot
> shots at the US....like it or not, we saved the
world
> at least twice in the last century (Nazism and Communism).....we share our God endowed wealth with
> the world...
>
"Saved the world" implies that if the US had done nothing there would be no world today. It may not
look the same as today but I assure you, there would still be a world. Oh, and "God endowed
wealth"...Baaaahahahahahaha!
 
Frank Tantillo wrote:

> The British Parliament supported using force to remove Saddam by an overwhelming majority. Make
> your views known in the voting booth......this is how a democracy works.

120 members of Tony Blair's own party voted against party lines in this vote. The British government
dismissed as "irrelevant" a 1 million person protest march in Central London as "not representing a
majority of the people". This is not democracy as the Greeks intended it.

Vote for politicians A on issues B at some time. Some time later, politicians A make decisions on
issues C and D. Unless the voting time to re-elect is very close to the decision time, then the
threat to vote against those politicians is largely irrelevant.

So your exhortation to "make your views known in the voting booth" is a red herring. What we need is
participative democracy where the leaders represent the CURRENT views of their demes.
 
On 3/8/03 4:22 PM, in article [email protected], "Kyle Legate"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Frank Tantillo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Perhaps we should've let the Japanese keep moving in the Pacific back in
> the
>> forties.....surely Australia and New Zealand would've fallen quite easily. It's easy to take pot
>> shots at the US....like it or not, we saved the
> world
>> at least twice in the last century (Nazism and Communism).....we share our God endowed wealth
>> with the world...
>>
> "Saved the world" implies that if the US had done nothing there would be no world today. It may
> not look the same as today but I assure you, there would still be a world. Oh, and "God endowed
> wealth"...Baaaahahahahahaha!
>
>
He is right you kanadian koward. You would probably be picking fruit on some communal farm. No Nike
sweat shop for you!!
 
It is impractical to have a popular vote on every major issue......you elect your representatives
based on their views on the issues at the time of election, true, but also on their ideology as well
as the ideology of the party they are a member of....

sounds like your issue is not with the system as currently configured......but rather the current PM
and members of Parliament not listening to the "people" (who are basing opinions on necessarily
incomplete information)

to paraphrase another PM - the system is not perfect but it's the best one we've got (or words to
that effect).

in any case, you will have the pleasure of seeing Mr Blair lose the next election....will he then
think the threat to vote against him was "irrelevant"

"Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Frank Tantillo wrote:
>
> > The British Parliament supported using force to remove Saddam by an overwhelming majority. Make
> > your views known in the voting
booth......this
> > is how a democracy works.
>
> 120 members of Tony Blair's own party voted against party lines in this
vote.
> The British government dismissed as "irrelevant" a 1 million person
protest
> march in Central London as "not representing a majority of the people". This is not democracy as
> the Greeks intended it.
>
> Vote for politicians A on issues B at some time. Some time later, politicians A make decisions on
> issues C and D. Unless the voting time to re-elect is very close to the decision time,
then the
> threat to vote against those politicians is largely irrelevant.
>
> So your exhortation to "make your views known in the voting booth" is a
red
> herring. What we need is participative democracy where the leaders
represent
> the CURRENT views of their demes.
 
"Frank Tantillo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dumbass?" Is that best you could come up with?
>
> Perhaps if you'd read my post you would've answered the questions asked instead of assuming that I
> said Hussein was a direct and immediate threat
to
> the United States. Of course, you offer no plausible solution to the
issues
> currently facing the Bush Administration. Were you asleep when the latest Bin Laden message asked
> Iraqis to carry out "suicide attacks on
Americans?"
> Common enemies band peoples, with ideologies that are seemingly opposed, together (USA and the
> USSR in 1943 for example).
>
> "Hussein isn't a terrorist?" Compensating the families of palestinian suicide bombers doesn't
> constitute terrorism? Financially supporting
Hamas
> and Islamic Jihad doesn't constitute terrorism? Does Hussein have to
board
> a commuter bus in Tel Aviv with a bomb in his hands for you to call him a terrorist?
>
> So come on, answer the questions .....what would you do about the Iraq issue? Did you have a
> problem with Clinton committing troops to Bosnia? His launching a missile attack on Baghdad?
>
> You, and others like you would be against any policy put forth by this administration.......again,
> what do you suggest we do?
>
> You clearly have no answers..........don't even bother trying again..............you're an idiot.

Frank, you are a funny guy. Perhaps some mood enhancers may be in order.

Hussein isn't a terrorist with respect to Americans. He main interest is acquiring personal power.
Committing a terrorist act against Americans will get him killed. Getting killed is not consistent
with acquiring more personal power.

He is a threat to his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia), not the United States.
 
"BR" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rob Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > If each MP voted the way his constituency would like then I seriously doubt if
we'd
> > have ended up with an "overwhelming majority". This clearly didn't
happen.
> > So we mount the largest public demonstration ever held in the UK and
> Cabinet
> > dismiss it with desperately childish arguments. How can the people make their views known and
> > have them acknowledged and taken into
consideration?
> > Apparently we can't do this. Sure, Blair goes on TV and gives "reasons"
> why
> > we need to go war. But I've yet to hear one that makes any sense. None
of
> > this makes any sense on any level. That's what I don't like.
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> Rob could use a primer on the principles and propriety of a
representative
> democracy.
>

Not as much as you seemingly need on the principles and propriety of a multinational-run world based
on consumerism.
 
> "Frank Tantillo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Perhaps we should've let the Japanese keep moving in the Pacific back in
> the
> > forties.....surely Australia and New Zealand would've fallen quite easily. It's easy to take pot
> > shots at the US....like it or not, we saved the
> world
> > at least twice in the last century (Nazism and Communism).....we share our God endowed wealth
> > with the world...
> >

The situation now is quite different, here we have Americans wanting to bomb a country for no other
reason than boosting a presidents popularity (ie, they aren't saving anyone). Notice that war
mongering in other countries *reduces* the governments popularity. It is as if America is on
another planet.

2ndly, the Pacific is a mute point, you didn't enter the war for 3 years, untill you were bombed at
Pearl harbor.
 
I'm through arguing........I've put forth way too many posts....bomb Iraq with Mavic
rims........invite Saddam to live in New Jersey....I just don't care anymore.....you win

your "Mood Enhancer" comment did however show the requisite effort.....good job

If you want to continue arguing - it's going to have to be about cycling or Lance Armstrong's
marital problems.

FT

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Frank Tantillo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Dumbass?" Is that best you could come up with?
> >
> > Perhaps if you'd read my post you would've answered the questions asked instead of assuming that
> > I said Hussein was a direct and immediate
threat
> to
> > the United States. Of course, you offer no plausible solution to the
> issues
> > currently facing the Bush Administration. Were you asleep when the
latest
> > Bin Laden message asked Iraqis to carry out "suicide attacks on
> Americans?"
> > Common enemies band peoples, with ideologies that are seemingly opposed, together (USA and the
> > USSR in 1943 for example).
> >
> > "Hussein isn't a terrorist?" Compensating the families of palestinian suicide bombers doesn't
> > constitute terrorism? Financially supporting
> Hamas
> > and Islamic Jihad doesn't constitute terrorism? Does Hussein have to
> board
> > a commuter bus in Tel Aviv with a bomb in his hands for you to call him
a
> > terrorist?
> >
> > So come on, answer the questions .....what would you do about the Iraq issue? Did you have a
> > problem with Clinton committing troops to Bosnia? His launching a missile attack on Baghdad?
> >
> > You, and others like you would be against any policy put forth by this
> > administration.......again, what do you suggest we do?
> >
> > You clearly have no answers..........don't even bother trying again..............you're an
> > idiot.
>
>
>
> Frank, you are a funny guy. Perhaps some mood enhancers may be in order.
>
> Hussein isn't a terrorist with respect to Americans. He main interest is acquiring personal power.
> Committing a terrorist act against Americans
will
> get him killed. Getting killed is not consistent with acquiring more personal power.
>
> He is a threat to his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia), not the
United
> States.
 
Interesting titbit I heard recently was more Australians were killed in the Darwin bombing than
Americans in Pearl Harbour's bombing... not that it has anything to do with cycling

Peter

"GK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1frk1on.46u8zxuko182N%[email protected]...
>
> 2ndly, the Pacific is a mute point, you didn't enter the war for 3 years, untill you were bombed
> at Pearl harbor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom Back