November 06, 2004

Did the dead guy vote? Otherwise maybe it was the P DIddy Mob who killed him Gangsta style.

Excellent work, Mr. Smith.

Personally I hope the suicide trend continues. Who cares if the moonbat population gets on the endangered species list.

Just think of it as an act of nature, and breathe a sigh of relief that the gene pool is now cleaner because this asshat offed himself.

Let's just hope he didn't breed before he did himself in.

May the American barking moonbat never be listed as an endangered species until it's already extinct.

If bald irrationality can characterize a cult - as it usually does - the Democrats have boldly proven their credentials: In a recent debate at Oxford University, The renowned actor of "Jaws" - and therefore an expert in World affairs, Richard Dreyfus, asserted that George Bush supports the State of Israel because "Revelations" has proclaimed that the establishment of Israel as a State is sufficient to assure the coming of Armegeddon. I cannot bring myself to even begin to try to untangle this assertion, except to say that the end is apparently near, and a Big Shark might be the instrument.

What annoys me about this story is that they don't give you any background information on the guy other than he was a Kerry supporter, according to his family. This guy probly had all sorts of problems. The next red light he stopped at could have set him over the edge. And it very well may have. There's no reported evidence that the elction did it. He didn't even leave a suicide note. I would think that If you were so enraged that you traveled to ground zero from Georgia to kill yourself you would at least scribble out "BUSH DID THIS" in crayon on the ground or something. This guy was just some nutball who offed himself.

> George Bush IS NOT Hitler

Thank god he is not, BUT the tendencies and mechanisms are the same. You've got your Homeland Security that is monitoring everything, you have Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gureib and you accept it without discussion. The ultra-conservatives and christian fundamentals are taking the power and are putting your ethics back to the middle ages silently. You have this creationism and intelligent design thing, and you believe in it and want to put it into your laws. It is dangerous to be a foreigner in your country and you can be sent to prison without reason. There is "America first" patriotism, and you want to rule the world. And the Bush government invented this strange war against non-existent enemy to keep the people following.

This and many more makes us think of "light versions" of Gestapo, NS, Auschwitz, WW II and all this shit we had. We Germans and Europeans are watching you with fear and astonishment, and you become strange to us... Can't you see this?

Johannes;

We want to rule the world? Bullshit.

I firmly believe the vast majority of Americans would like nothing more than to wash our hands of the rest of the world. We're tired of having to get involved in one backwater cesspit after another because the inhabitants of said cesspit won't stop killing each other. If you "Germans and Europeans" would stop "watching ... with fear and astonishment" long enough get off your collective asses and DO something (besides taking bribes from genocidal dictators, that is) about the problem areas the US is always having to get involved in then perhaps we wouldn't be so "strange" to you.

We have a couple of sayings here in the US: "Shit or get off the pot" and "Lead, follow, or get out of the way". You "Germans and Europeans" should either do something about the problems out there so we don't have to or else just shut the fuck up.

I wonder if the fact that he was from Georgia had anything to do with the fact that he was a maniac?

Scott:

I agree, in here we can discuss things forever and ever, and finally nothing will happen. Shame on us. But I'm not sure if acting for the reason of acting is the better alternative.

E.g. the whole mess in Iraq we have today. When the Iraq thing came up again two years ago, it didn't take much to figure out the situation we have today: getting Saddam out of the country would not be the difficult part, but when he is gone, the Iraqi people will start a civil war that has been smouldering for many years. Plus they will not like a foreign army in their country, plus even more islamic people will sympathize with the Iraqi people and start hating the western world, especially the US. And it was almost sure that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaida. And today we have it.

Therefore this whole war was and is imho absolutely counterproductive for doing something against the terrorism thing. And maybe it had been better to think twice on this really complex situation instead of acting blindly.

And I think the Bush administration has forced this whole "War against terror"-voodoo very aimed with propaganda, because a war is always a very easy thing to do, and it would keep the people from thinking to much about other thinks he is meanwhile doing in the background.

"Voodoo"? "keep people from thinking"?
Listen assclown - we lost 3000 people in an attack on the soil of our country that was unprovoked except in the fevered imagination of Islamofascists. And you, based on the plain meaning of your words, take their side. Don't you dare lecture us about how 'simple' and how our "tendencies" and "mechanisms" are Hitler-producing.
Germany elected Hitler so perhaps Germany should never again elect a leader. We'll be happy to select a leader for Germany since it's proven it can't be trusted with something resembling democracy.
The war this country has finally entered into after repeated provocations going back to the Reagan edministration wil only be won when those who choose to use terror are killed. They can not be negotiated with, they can not be appeased. If you don't believe me, ask Theo vanGogh. Oh, that's right, YOU CAN'T!

"George Bush IS NOT Hitler" would have made a great bumper sticker! To bad the campaign is over.

I was gonna chime in here with how I could understand how Germans would object to us warring with those who wish to see Jews exterminated, but I figured that such a comment would be a cheap shot. So, I won't.

Scott and Blogdog. I wouldn't worry about it too much, A European just referred to those of us who voted for Bush to "Nazi-lites." Europeans tend to despise American leaders with balls as well as those of us who elect them. Shit, back when I was in high-school around 1990 (while I was relatively apolitical) a German exchange student ensured that the hatred felt by him and his people of Reagan was known.

So, what the hell else is new? I want to say that "Europe is colluding with those who want to destroy the U.S." is something new, but that, sadly, ain't.

What leftists who scream "BUSH IS HITLER" fail to realize is that Hitler rose from the german left, not the right. Pre-Hitler Germany had many frightening parralells to current America. There was a huge surge of intelligentsia coming out of universities that was extremely anti-semitic, anti-rightwing, anti-christian, and very interestingly, pro-homosexual. Hitler himself was an art school student. And do not beleive the lie that Nazis were Christian. I've seen this thrown around and it is utter bullshit. Another frightening paralell was this same intelligentsia screaming that the current leaders were fundamentalist fascist nuts who just wanted to control everything. When Hitler rose to power the word "Fascist" (german equivalent of course) had been thrown around so much that it no longer had meaning. Anything the left disagreed with was instantly "fascist". This let Hitler decree whatever he wanted for "The good of the German people". If we fail to remember this, there could very well be another Hitler-esque ruler coming to power in America. If such a ruler does come to power, it will undoubtedly come from the left, not the right.

Guys, this "Who is not with us is against us"-paradigm is complete bullshit, an even dangerous paradigm. Do you really think we are terrorist sympathizers? Also remember the 200 people that died in Madrid. Even several German lives were lost due to attempts on tourists in islamic countries during the last years. Do you think we like that?
But what is your war on terrorism against? Those terrorists are single persons, hiding somewhere in some mountain regions or whereever. Does bombing Bagdad affect any of them?
And did you catch Bin Laden? I think he is glad like a child that his plan went so well to pull the US into a war against the islamic world. That's all he wants, because that way even more islamic people will hate the US and start terrorism. And somehow you are following his will.
I think it would be much better to convince the people that where dancing on the streets on 9/11 that you are NOT their enemy!

Sorry, Johannes, you are dead wrong. The terrorists aren't "single persons". (unless you mean none of them are married, in which case, wrong again) They are the spawn of Wahabbist Islam. They want to kill all of us infidels. Too late to "convince" them, except by force, the only thing they understand. Whoever will not help stop them is their collaborator.

Sorry, misunderstanding. With "single persons" I mean that they are not a country. And therefore it's imho quite useless to attack a country. And don't get me wrong, of course terrorists have to be fighted! I'm not their friend either. Who has to be convinced is the common people around the world...

Evolution in Action Baby!

Evolution in action.

Johannes,

First, the English word you're hunting for is "individuals" (=einzeln personen). Yes, with us it's a noun.

Second, you are both wrong and right. Wrong, in that the individuals engaging in terrorism cannot function without the support of a country (staat). Oh, they can kill one another, but things like the WTC bombing are simply not possible without things like money and passports, which only governments can provide. Right, in that the people doing it must be fought; but even there you've grasped the wrong end of the stick.

Are you familiar with the "Whack-A-Mole" game? There is a board with holes, and little (artificial) creatures pop up randomly. The player must bash them with a hammer, and the goal of the game is to get them all down at the same time. It's fun, and virtually impossible.

Killing terrorists, even killing leaders like bin Laden, is a game of Whack-A-Muslim. For some people it's great fun, but for a lot of us it's too clearly unwinnable to be very entertaining. The whole point of "punishment" as engaged by the State is to deter others from copying the bad guys. No matter how many Islamic terrorists we whack, there will always be more so long as the conditions that generate them exist. A way must be found to eliminate the conditions.

This is where Leftists lose their way. The Left's picture of "why they hate us" is grounded in the concepts of oppression and imperialism -- in that view, the Islamics are attacking because the West, and especially the United States, have stolen their wealth from them. This is reactionary revisionism. It ignores their specific and plain statements in favor of dredging up scripture from St. Karl the Infallible and the hadith of such as Trotsky. The fact that clever ones such as bin Laden understand the West well enough to ape Leftist cant does not change the fact that "the reason they hate us" is that their culture is a failure and cannot be fixed; the only way they can look successful is to reduce the West to equal impoverishment and incapability, and that is what they intend.

The campaign in Iraq had three primary aims:
1) To remove Saddam Hussein, whose activities in defying the US and the West were seen as successful and gave Islamics hope that the West could be defied;
2) To convince Islamic states that supporting terrorists was no longer a safe thing to do, and that cooperation with the people trying to hunt down terrorists was a good idea; and
3) To create an island in the Middle East which used Western precepts and would therefore prosper.

That last may well be impossible... but if it does not happen, the people trying to hunt down the terrorists will do so at an impossible disadvantage. At minimum, to hunt down terrorists requires information; why should, e.g., a Pathan tribesman tell an investigator anything at all, when the investigator is known to be powerless and the folk he seeks will kill the informer's family? Can't be done. Furthermore, if we cannot divert the Middle East into productive lives, terrorism will continue indefinitely, and at some point patience will run out. At the moment the terrorists haven't done nearly enough to get even a large minority of Americans, let alone Europeans, to suggest Final Solutions. If terrorism continues, how long until everyone agrees that it is intolerable? Sooner or later it will happen, and by then the only solution will be what John Ringo called "Option Zero." Kill them all.

No one will call for that? Ask someone in the Netherlands at the moment.

It is entirely possible that we will not succeed in making Iraq into a country rather than a snake pit. If so, much of that failure will be the fault of Europeans and Leftists who either don't understand the situation, or do and are content to see people killed in order to give the U.S. a black eye. Understand, we're trying to teach them Federal republican democracy and capitalist economics, because that's what we know how to do; we'd settle for less, e.g. Egypt II would be better than what we had before, but there's no reason not to try for the best-possible outcome. Aim high; you may not hit your target, but you won't shoot your foot.

But if it fails completely, Option Zero comes closer. You might give up to the Islamics and put your women in burkhas and grow beards; we will not -- count on it. And if terrorism doesn't stop, and you don't give in, eventually you will agree with us, but by then it will be too late to do anything sophisticated and nuanced. All that will be left is a spasm, green glass from the Jordan to the Hindu Kush. It is this that we are trying to avoid, and dammit, you aren't helping.

Regards,
Ric Locke

acidman, you comments about
"banana republic where a dictator can take over and rule with an iron fist, with the military to back him up" would be really cool if you add: "usually impossed and/or supported by the exemplary democratic US goverment". You can even put "PLAN" at the end.

P.D.
hypocrisy and cynicism RULES!!

acidman, you comments about
"banana republic where a dictator can take over and rule with an iron fist, with the military to back him up" would be really cool if you add: "usually impossed and/or supported by the exemplary democratic US goverment". You can even put "PLAN" at the end.

P.D.
bah! boring mediocre thoughts
hypocrisy and cynicism RULES!!

What? Bush not a Hitler? Oh, I forgot....his grandpappy, Prescott Bush, FUNDED Hitler through pharmaceuticals. Guess that's different. Type in Bush Illuminati and see what comes up. Type in Bush Occult and see what comes up. Type in Bush Hitler and see what comes up.

Proof enough for me.

Oh, and I, too, like the man who killed himself, almost succeeded. Fortunately, one of the media outlets that I sent my goodbye letter to cared about me and send the police to save me. Even the policeman who arrived first calmed me and said, he, too, was so disappointed.

There is TOO MUCH UNKNOWN and too much emotion.

Me? I care not to live in a dictatorship. So, my choice was to leave the country, in my OWN way. I didn't succeed!

> hypocrisy and cynicism RULES!!

I'm not sure if it is the right time for that. Think of Guantanomo Bay. Random people, picked up anywhere from the streets, maybe because they where the taxi-driver of a brother of a guy that is maybe suspicious, are sent into prison for years, without lawyer, without accusation, treated like animals.
Even Europeans and Germans have experienced nightmares in US prisons while staying there for weeks because they had a mistake in their passport or visa form.
Not a banana republic?

Or think of the reasons the Bush administration gave for the War on Iraq. Lies! Think of that "fine paper" that Colin Powell presented to the UN to proove the existence of weapons of mass destruction. It turned out to be a 10 years old work of some students.

Sorry, the "Old Europe" does not support a war that is based on lies, especially if it's against international law. That's our view.

And if http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm should turn out to be true, you definetly are a banana republic...

And you are complaining that we are not helping now. I think this is a matter of proper diplomacy. Bush is acutally a very bad diplomat, and the first thing he did four years ago was smashing a lot of porcelain in international relationships by breaking up long lasting contracts and the like with his "America first" thing. Another reason why we are not helping now.
I think with Kerry you had probably done much better in this question, because the discussion in here already started that was no real reason NOT to help, when Kerry would return to multilateral talks.

But maybe you don't want to talk to girly-men without balls, as I could read here.

I think you prefer to follow this ignoble and stupid liar Bush like sheep. Strong masculine sheep with big balls and big guns, indeed.

Thanks and bye bye...

PS: Thanks, Ric Locke! This was the first time that someone could give good reasons for a war on iraq.
They are still problematic in many ways, but really comprehensible.
If there had been proper talks with good reasons like this, maybe the relationships between the US and the EU would be much better now.