a question

Q. What is the difference between a blow job and a war crime?

A. They will impeach a president over a blow job.

Sorry I have been gone so long.

 

Showing your left wing roots yet again Shady.

 

A rallying cry from my mispent & very fun youth.

"Sure the liberals are behind us, far behind us."

So you believe that only left wingers are pissed off at the war crimes of this current adminstration? I have friends who are Republicans who will NOT vote for boy George in November. Of course I rather doubt they will vote for Kerry.

I wish to remind you that we hung Japanese after WWII for nothing but starting the war. We called a crime against the peace. Exactly what is the difference between 12/7/41 and what we did when we first marched into Iraq?

 

That your president managed to justify it in front of everyone else, even if not that many people were convinced and his "evidence" turned out to be crap.
Welcome back!

 

Welcome back, o' shady one, I can say with absolute honesty that nobodie has missed you.

 

I'm a bit disappointed, really. I was exceedingly impressed when you disappeared from here and the Sierra boards with such dedication. Showed real commitment, or real infimity, either way.

Nice to see you regardless.

 

We didn't go sneaking into the night, attacking an entire fleet of unsuspecting Iraqis. It's not like they didn't know we were coming. Well, actually, most of the peons probably didn't know, due to brainwashing and propaganda. We knew that the Japanese were potentially hostile towards us, sure, but to expect an attack of that magnitude was folly. I really don't see how you can compare the two, Shady.

By the way, I'm sick of all this "war crime" bull. Saddam has tortured and killed thousands of people. But that's okay, just so long as he doesn't have WMD's. Are we, as one of the most moral and powerful countries in the world, supposed to stand by while mass murder goes on outside our territories? How is what Bush did worse than whatever it is you libs propose that we do? Or shoulda done? By the way, what do you propose be done? Hmm? I've yet to hear that from a lib, unless they still are harping on that old, tired "We shoulda gave the weapons inspectors more time" "We shoulda involved the U.N. more"

By the way, up until the seventies? eighties? we were still looking for WMD's that we know Hitler had. We haven't found the overwhelming WMD's in Iraq that we were expecting. How silly of us to expect Saddam to leave them all in the back seat of his limo, or in his attic, or in the tool shed out back. Saddam knew we were coming for almost a year. Shit, I could hide a fucking nuke in that period of time.

bolding mine

You make it sound as though they gave us an official and formal declaration of war, neatly typed up on perfumed stationary. They bombed unsuspecting soldiers, relaxing in a harbor.

I guess freeing thousands of Iraqis from decades of living beneath the oppresive hand of tyranny and persecution is a "crime against the peace" to you. Do you even care about the well being of innocents, Shady? Why do you hate the U.S. so much?

Oh, and by the way, welcome back.

 

I'll join the bandwagon and say "welcome back, Shadygrove" even though I joined recently and never met you before .

 

Welcome back, Shady.
I'm going to simply say that I agree with you and disagree with Retard. But we allready knew that.
Maybe I'll actually join in the argument later.

 

:-o
Don't make us laugh now, okay?

"One of the most moral countries in the world..." Jeez... The only thing Americans have in abundance are WMD's and cholestorol. That's it really. Nothing to be proud about, methinks. There's more morality to be found in the wart on the inside leg of a dying Ethiopian than in the whole US of A.

 

Tsk, tsk. Your last statement was not only wrong, it was stupid, and did nothing to convince. Try again.

 

Well thanks for the kind, or in some cases thoughtful, welcome. Glad to be back.

Retard, what is moral about touturing people wether innocent or guilty?

What is moral about supporting some murderous regimes, tolerating others, and marching into one that just happens to have the second largest oil reserves in the world?

The crime against the peace was starting a war against a country that had done nothing to us. Recently that is.

The real eneimy in the mideast is the House of Saud, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia. Installed in power by Prescot Bush and an english MI 5 agent by the name of Philby. These people are the cash behinf the radical Whabi sect (spelled wrong, I am sure) and Al Quida.

I love this country. I cry over what it has become. The same with Israel. I want both of them to be better than they are, to be what their ideals say they should be.

Whatever we have done in Iraq, And there is some good with the bad and the truly horrid, we cause far too much misery and suffering in this world, both at home and abroad.

 

*double-take*

Wow...I had to check the name there to make sure it wasn't our good friend Charles...that's a true Hoffism, man : ) ...

 

You know, it could just be me, but I don't recall Saudi's royal family being but in power during the 80's when Bush Snr was in power (which is what I believe what you were saying Shady).

And is that Philby the same one that defected to the Soviet Union?

 

I think he was talking about Bush Sr.'s father, Prescott Bush. I'm not overly familiar with his Saudi connections, but I do believe he supplied credit and raw matierials to Hitler during WWII, and ended up with his assets seized under the Trading With The Enemy Act. Then he became a US Senator, go fig.

 

Ah, well, I'd never heard of Prescott Bush. I figured it was yet another spelling mistake. Let me amend my previous statement to "I believe the Saudi Royal Family has been in power for several generations, not just the last 60 odd years. I could be wrong on this, but considering how religious they are, I doubt they would have listened to the Bush family way back when."

 

One Prescot Bush was GWB's Grandfather, another Prescot was his great grandfather I don't remember which one did the Arabian thing, I think the GGF. The Brit was the father of Kim Philby, the notorious Brit double agent, and I can NEVER remember his first name. Time frame was early 20th century.

I only got a 3.2 with my History BA, names and dates were always hard.

Jar, Prescot is not a mispelling of George. It is perhaps, a mispelling of Prescot, but I think I got it right.

This country once aspired to be the light and hope of the world. The Republican party seems to be proud that we are now, and I quote "Not as bad as Sadam."

 

Well, Shady is half right. He is right that the Wahhabi sect (and their organizational structure, the Muslim Brotherhood) is the real enemy. He is right that the House of Saud is the cash behind the Wahhabis, from Hamas to Chechenian "rebels". What he is wrong about is that the US had anything at all to do with installing the House of Saud as the ruling force in Arabia.

The House of Saud emerged in the beginning of the century, during the Wahhabi conquest of the Arabian peninsula, when their army, commanded by Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, the founder of the dynasty, succeeded in conquering Riyadh. Later, when the Ottoman empire fell, the Middle East came under British control, but the Hashemite dynasty became de-facto leaders of the Arab world. Emir Abdullah controlled Transjordan, his brother Faisal became king of Hedjaz- coastal area of the Arabian peninsula where Mecca and Medina are located- Syria, and later Iraq. Not to mention that the Hashemite dynasty has a special status in Islam as rulers blessed by Allah and descendants of Mohammad.
The Hashemites began pushing for full independence pretty much from the beginning. In 1919, during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference (which marked the end of World war I), King Faisal did two things that pissed off the Brits big time. First, he demanded an immediate independence of the Arab Middle East from Western colonial powers, Britain and France first of all. Second, he signed an agreement with the Zionist movement about creating a Jewish state in Palestine (known as the Weizmann-Faisal agreement). That second thing probably pissed off the Brits more than the demand for independence, because it destroyed the only British excuse for staying in the Middle East (the excuse was that Britain committed itself to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine in the Balfour declaration of 1917, but could not create such a state as long as the Arabs opposed the idea). After the conference, the British were desperately searching for an Arab leadership who could "outbalance" the Hashemites- and found the House of Saud. Within a few years of generous funding and weapon supplies, the Saudis defeated Faisal in Hedjaz, taken over Islam's holy ground and established themselves as the "keepers of Mecca" and therefore religious leaders of Islam. To further weaken the Hashemites, the British allowed France to take control over Syria, and the French ousted Faisal from there. The Arab nationalism, that was now looking up to the Saudis rather than to the weakened Hashemites, turned to a Wahhabi-like radical and racist path, and ended up in a sorry state it is today.