Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Checking login status…

USERNAME:

PASSWORD:

Logging in…

Logged in as:
.
Logging out…
Inbox My Account Log Out


Forum Topic: Bush invokes Godwin's Law

(388 views • 32 replies)

This topic is 2 pages long. [ 1 | 2 ]

<< < > >>
None

Grammer

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/15/08 06:50 PM

Grammer LIGHT LEVEL 36

Sign-Up: 06/26/04

Posts: 13,203

Bush slams Iran in Knesset speech

I'm putting the parts that intrigued me the most in bold, so you know exactly which parts I'm talking about in this article when I give my two cents at the end of this post.

------------------------

JERUSALEM - U.S. President George W. Bush told the Israeli Knesset Thursday that those who would talk with Iran or Syria were guilty of "appeasement" of a kind that once emboldened Hitler.

The remark was widely interpreted as a thinly veiled attack on Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who has said the U.S. should not exclude talking with Iran or Syria.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."

"We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Much of the president's speech to the Israeli legislators was about Iran's nuclear ambitions, the menace of terrorism and how democracies would defeat it.

"To permit the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations," Bush said during a speech that was the focal point of a three-day trip to the Holy Land to share in Israel's celebrations of the 60th anniversary of its creation.

"For the sake of peace the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

Bush again pledged to help Israel remain secure. Israel was not a nation of seven million alone against its enemies, he said, but rather "when you confront terror and evil, you are 307-million strong because America stands with you."

Bush described Israel as "the freest democracy in the Middle East" and said that it was his "bold vision" that by the time the Jewish state was another 60 years older there would also be democracy in Syria and Iran.

The president also forcefully denounced anti-semitism.

"We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to civilized society so we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms whether by those who openly question Israel's right to exist, or by others who quietly excuse them," he said. "Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away."

In his second visit in four months after not setting foot here during the first seven years of his presidency, politicians and commentators alike have hailed Bush as one of the country's most loyal friends ever. At the same time there has been much comment that the next U.S. president may not be nearly as supportive of Israel as Bush has been.

Before Bush addressed the Knesset, his host, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, also spoke of the scourge of extremism and described Iran as "the greatest threat to world peace."

The prime minister, who is fighting for his political life against mounting bribery allegations, singled out "the murderous, fundamentalist threat of terror, which is devoid of any moral inhibitions, (as) the most important challenge currently facing democratic societies around the globe.

"The outcome of this confrontation will have far-reaching repercussions on the future and the way life of the free world. You, Mr. President, will be remembered as the man who courageously and without hesitation took the reins of leadership and stood firmly and determinedly against this formidable challenge."

Referring to Iran, Olmert said that while Israel did not rule out military action, "presenting a united international, political and economic front (and) more severe and effective sanctions is a necessary even if not final step" to curb the threat.

The Israeli leader recalled that it was the U.S. which was the first country to recognize his country when David Ben Gurion declared its independence in 1948; that the U.S. had provided arms when the Soviet Union gave weapons to Israel's enemies; and that when Bush's father was president he had helped Ethiopian Jews emigrate to Israel.

"The deep-rooted friendship between the United States and Israel is not an accidental one, and it cannot be taken for granted," Olmert said. "It is a friendship predicated on shared values and on a moral, human and social destiny, the main principles of which are individual liberty, social justice and peace."

Bush spent the morning touring the ruins of a 2,000-year-old Roman fortress at Masada near the Dead Sea. He, Olmert and their entourages rode a cable car up a steep cliff to the place where nearly 1,000 Jews committed suicide rather than surrender to Roman legions trying to maintain control of Judea.

Back in the U.S., Obama, who has favoured direct diplomatic engagement with Iran, condemned Bush for what he perceived as a political smear against him delivered on foreign soil.

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said.

"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people - or our stalwart ally Israel."

He said the U.S. needs "to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power - including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria."

The White House denied Bush was singling out Obama for criticism, saying the president's remarks were addressed at all politicians who favour talks with radical regimes.

"I would think that all of you who cover these issues . . . have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that President Bush thinks we should not talk to," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino to reporters. "I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you - that is not always true and it is not true in this case."

Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said he agreed with Bush's characterization about the dangers of appeasement.

While McCain did not directly accuse Obama of appeasement, the Republican senator slammed the Democratic front-runner for proposing talks with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust," McCain said in Columbus, Ohio. "That's what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.''

While Bush and Olmert were sightseeing, Palestinians, who have often accused the U.S. of being too close to Israel to be an honest broker in Middle East peace talks, held marches and launched black balloons in the air over the West Bank to recall events of 60 years ago, which they recall as the Nakba or the Catastrophe.

Bush did not specifically mention the struggling Annapolis peace process, which he initiated last fall, but he did state that he believed the Palestinians would realize their dream of having a state.

((CONTINUED IN MY NEXT POST))

Check out my user page. JUST DO IT MOTHER FUCKER

BBS Signature

None

poxpower

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/15/08 06:54 PM

poxpower DARK LEVEL 46

Sign-Up: 12/02/00

Posts: 24,164

You know who else invoked Godwin's Law?


Elated

MattBlackguard

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/15/08 06:58 PM

MattBlackguard DARK LEVEL 02

Sign-Up: 05/05/08

Posts: 87

It surprises me to see how many people (especially Jews and their Zionist supporters) despise Hitler without knowing this little tidbit of history:

If it wasn't for Hitler, there never would have been an Israel.

Blood libel; ain't it grand?

None

Grammer

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/15/08 07:01 PM

Grammer LIGHT LEVEL 36

Sign-Up: 06/26/04

Posts: 13,203

((PENIS PENIS PENIS))

Basically it boils down to this:
- Bush evokes Godwin's Law so he can cover his stupid-ass policy of not talking with a country that's our enemy. Oh I'm sorry, I forgot we only talk with people who already like us. That's how diplomacy works, right?

- Barack Obama sticks to his guns and says we need to talk with not just the people who we like, but people who we don't like, as well. Does that necessarily mean appeasement?

- McCain, whom I still support (sort of), agrees with Bush and basically says we shouldn't talk with our enemies, on the basis that Iran said some crazy shit about Israel, so therefore they're not worth our time. I. Call. Bullshit.

I think this is generally stupid, and it makes it seem like Bush just wants to kill every terrorist. From what I've seen from the Bush admin, they don't want us to stop making new enemies, they want to stick to their "With us or against us" attitude. Quite frankly, that kind of talk may be good for rallying the American people, but not when you're dealing with an enemy that is looking for good recruiting material.

Check out my user page. JUST DO IT MOTHER FUCKER

BBS Signature

None

Ravariel

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/15/08 07:12 PM

Ravariel DARK LEVEL 11

Sign-Up: 04/19/05

Posts: 2,181

At 5/15/08 06:54 PM, poxpower wrote: You know who else invoked Godwin's Law?

Your mom?

Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Heathenry. A forum for the more evolved to discuss religion.


None

Memorize

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/15/08 07:24 PM

Memorize DARK LEVEL 21

Sign-Up: 06/12/04

Posts: 12,867

Idiot.

-Bush didn't even mention Obama.
-We already DO talk to Iran.
-Why should the President have a 1 to 1 talk with Iran?

We're talking about a nation who seems to find it entertaining when people launch rockets into Israel randomly, killing civilians.

We're talking about a nation who frequently yells "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".

We're talking about a country that is ruled by an extremist religious council, which goes out of its way to hang homosexuals, all while their leader states "We do not have that problem in our country".

And they seem to love doing nothing about their guard shipping weapons to Insurgents in Iraq.

So what kind of stupid shit would have unconditional (key word: Unconditional) talks with a country like this which shows no signs of actually following through with any requests?

I do love the double standard from Nancy Pelosi though.

"What Bush did was below the dignity of the presidency". ??? He didn't mention Obama. Bush didn't speak anything about Obama. All while "Having an affair while on the job and lying about something so petty" somehow isn't "beneath the dignity of the presidency".

And of course, Americans are too stupid to realize any of this.


None

Ravariel

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/15/08 07:36 PM

Ravariel DARK LEVEL 11

Sign-Up: 04/19/05

Posts: 2,181

At 5/15/08 07:24 PM, Memorize wrote: -Bush didn't even mention Obama.

You really do have a hard time with subtleties don't you?

-We already DO talk to Iran.

...sort of...

-Why should the President have a 1 to 1 talk with Iran?

Yeah, having better relations with an unfriendly country is bad.

We're talking about a nation who seems to find it entertaining when people launch rockets into Israel randomly, killing civilians.

It gets pretty good ratings here, too...

We're talking about a nation who frequently yells "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".

Yeah, we're just more subtle about saying things like "Death to Iraq" and "Death to Iran". So much more diplomatic when we phrase it like "Itan is the biggest threat to peace in the world. They are part of an axis of EVIL!"

But it's okay, cuz we're America... we can do no wrong.

And they seem to love doing nothing about their guard shipping weapons to Insurgents in Iraq.

Diplomacy totally wouldn't help in that regard. We should just bomb them to the stone age. It always solves all our problems when we do that.

So what kind of stupid shit would have unconditional (key word: Unconditional) talks with a country like this which shows no signs of actually following through with any requests?

As far as I can tell, you're the only one using the word "unconditional".

"What Bush did was below the dignity of the presidency". ??? He didn't mention Obama. Bush didn't speak anything about Obama.

By name, no. But talking directly about a point on which he has been very vocal and basically slapping him in the face with it totally doesn't mean that he directed the remarks at the Obama camp. It was all quite unintentional and coincidental, I'm sure.

All while "Having an affair while on the job and lying about something so petty" somehow isn't "beneath the dignity of the presidency".

Of course it is.

And of course, Americans are too stupid to realize any of this.

Yup, we sure is dumb.

Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Heathenry. A forum for the more evolved to discuss religion.


None

Memorize

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/15/08 08:36 PM

Memorize DARK LEVEL 21

Sign-Up: 06/12/04

Posts: 12,867

At 5/15/08 07:36 PM, Ravariel wrote:
At 5/15/08 07:24 PM, Memorize wrote: -Bush didn't even mention Obama.
You really do have a hard time with subtleties don't you?

That's all you have?

Subleties?

You would suck as a lawyer.

-We already DO talk to Iran.
...sort of...

Ok.

Then shut the fuck up.

-Why should the President have a 1 to 1 talk with Iran?
Yeah, having better relations with an unfriendly country is bad.

They haven't met any demands.

They have not headed to the demands of the US or UN and consistantly threaten other nations.

You're an idiot if you think we can better our relations with them.

Yeah, we're just more subtle about saying things like "Death to Iraq" and "Death to Iran". So much more diplomatic when we phrase it like "Itan is the biggest threat to peace in the world. They are part of an axis of EVIL!"

You saying they're not evil?

Diplomacy with Iran. We already talk to Iran. We already try to gain ground with them. The one thing we don't do is have our president give their puppet leader a 1-on-1.

And why should we?

They're the ones creating weapons. They're the ones supporting the militias in Iraq. They're the ones who continuously shut down any demands of them by the UN.

Why should WE give up something for them?


But it's okay, cuz we're America... we can do no wrong.

I never said America was a great nation.

It would be great though, if people like you weren't so laughable. lol.

Fucking idiot.

Diplomacy totally wouldn't help in that regard. We should just bomb them to the stone age. It always solves all our problems when we do that.

We have been working with them through diplomacy.

You're an idiot if you don't already realize that.

So what kind of stupid shit would have unconditional (key word: Unconditional) talks with a country like this which shows no signs of actually following through with any requests?
As far as I can tell, you're the only one using the word "unconditional".

I'm sorry. "Pre-Conditions", what do you want? A word game?

What logic do you see in having our leader sit down with their puppet leader without ANY conditions at all considering their track record?

Stupid ass.

By name, no.

Then shut the fuck up.

Lol, you and your pathetic "I can pin anything I want on what the president says even if he doesn't say it".

Of course it is.

And yet you defend it.

Yup, we sure is dumb.

Yes. You are.

I really do wish you idiots would've done what you claiming and LEFT the US.

Then the world would be a MUCH better place.


None

poxpower

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/15/08 08:46 PM

poxpower DARK LEVEL 46

Sign-Up: 12/02/00

Posts: 24,164

At 5/15/08 07:12 PM, Ravariel wrote:
At 5/15/08 06:54 PM, poxpower wrote: You know who else invoked Godwin's Law?
Your mom?

You know who else had a mom?


None

LazyDrunk

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/15/08 09:49 PM

LazyDrunk LIGHT LEVEL 23

Sign-Up: 11/03/04

Posts: 7,459

At 5/15/08 08:46 PM, poxpower wrote:
At 5/15/08 07:12 PM, Ravariel wrote:
At 5/15/08 06:54 PM, poxpower wrote: You know who else invoked Godwin's Law?
Your mom?
You know who else had a mom?

Uncle Banface?

..and boo@iran

We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.

BBS Signature

None

SmilezRoyale

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/15/08 09:59 PM

SmilezRoyale FAB LEVEL 02

Sign-Up: 10/21/06

Posts: 3,290

right or wrong in terms of diplomacy about iran aside...

Your logic about bush vs. obama is sort of flawed. If Obama says that the united states should open talks with Iran; and bush says on another occasion that talking to iran is a bad idea, why is it automatically assumed that it's a personal attack on Obama?

The article even says that obama was not alone in supporting talks with iran, so what if bush is making a personal attack on pelosi? What then.

And since when is criticizing the ideas of the other party uncommon or unusual?

About iran... What little i know about iran; they don't seem like the type that would agree to a peace settlement, and much like with treaties signed with Israel; they always get broken, and the violence never stops; which, unfortunately, is just another good reason for why jews should be paranoid.

Obama as president can sign a piece of paper with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or however you spell his name, but i don't think they're going to stop doing anything that they can get away with without being spotted, and Mahmoud is pretty empowered by the fact the obama will be neither capable nor willing of backing up any sort of treaty with military arms, we're aready stretched too thin.

George bush opperates on what is called the blue meme, it's a meme that focuses on loyalty and reward, and has a very strong sense of right and wrong, a sort of all encompassing madona whore complex.

Obama has a green meme complex that attempts to empathize, collectivize, and acheive things in the most 'peacefull' manner possible.

While obama's meme is more admirable, i think Bushes meme is a bit more appropriate for the red meme of Mahmoud, since each meme tends to be the weakness of the one after it, and the strength of the one before it. The red meme is a meme that focuses on absolute authority, ruling with an iron fist, Hitler, Mao, that sort of thing, it's a more old fashioned and brutal aproach that goes against the morality of the blue and green memes.

I just have very little reason to expect that the Iranians will cooperate.

i apologize for being what may appear to be cynical

This is how debate works; 1) Present Facts 2) Use logic to Interpret the facts 3) Then make conclusions.


None

Grammer

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/15/08 10:14 PM

Grammer LIGHT LEVEL 36

Sign-Up: 06/26/04

Posts: 13,203

At 5/15/08 07:24 PM, Memorize wrote: Idiot.

mmmmmmm, I love it when you talk dirty to me like that

-Bush didn't even mention Obama.

I never said he did, lol

-We already DO talk to Iran.

lol

-Why should the President have a 1 to 1 talk with Iran?

I didn't say 1-on-1 talks

We're talking about a nation who seems to find it entertaining when people launch rockets into Israel randomly, killing civilians.

So let's ignore them.

We're talking about a nation who frequently yells "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".

Who gives a flying fuck. They could be Nazi Germany reincarnate, you don't ignore your enemies because you don't like things they've said.

And they seem to love doing nothing about their guard shipping weapons to Insurgents in Iraq.

Please stop listing the reasons why we should have talks with them. It's like you're doing my work for me.

So what kind of stupid shit would have unconditional (key word: Unconditional) talks with a country like this which shows no signs of actually following through with any requests?

The kind of stupid shit who thinks ignoring the enemy is a bad idea.

The Bush admin had it right on North Korea. We had six party talks, used carrots and sticks, and they seem to be complying. If we're going to make the argument that if a country is too evil to negotiate with, then why the fuck did we have talks with a country that's been starving it's people to death?

Check out my user page. JUST DO IT MOTHER FUCKER

BBS Signature

None

Grammer

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/15/08 10:15 PM

Grammer LIGHT LEVEL 36

Sign-Up: 06/26/04

Posts: 13,203

At 5/15/08 08:46 PM, poxpower wrote:
At 5/15/08 07:12 PM, Ravariel wrote:
At 5/15/08 06:54 PM, poxpower wrote: You know who else invoked Godwin's Law?
Your mom?
You know who else had a mom?

omfg hitler

Check out my user page. JUST DO IT MOTHER FUCKER

BBS Signature

None

SolInvictus

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/16/08 03:47 AM

SolInvictus EVIL LEVEL 17

Sign-Up: 10/15/05

Posts: 5,081

apeasement? since when were we giving Iran land and military leeway?

VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
Te Quiero Rammstein

BBS Signature

None

Memorize

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/16/08 04:10 AM

Memorize DARK LEVEL 21

Sign-Up: 06/12/04

Posts: 12,867

At 5/15/08 10:14 PM, Grammer wrote:
We're talking about a nation who seems to find it entertaining when people launch rockets into Israel randomly, killing civilians.
So let's ignore them.

1) We're not ignoring them.
2) We are talking to them.

We're talking about a nation who frequently yells "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".
Who gives a flying fuck. They could be Nazi Germany reincarnate, you don't ignore your enemies because you don't like things they've said.

See above.

Damn idiot.

Please stop listing the reasons why we should have talks with them. It's like you're doing my work for me.

See above.

So what kind of stupid shit would have unconditional (key word: Unconditional) talks with a country like this which shows no signs of actually following through with any requests?
The kind of stupid shit who thinks ignoring the enemy is a bad idea.

We're not ignoring you stupid fuck.

We do talk to them. Iraq and the States both talk to Iran.

So quit spreading around your stupidity.

The Bush admin had it right on North Korea. We had six party talks, used carrots and sticks, and they seem to be complying.

Yeah. That explains the nuclear facility that Israel blew up in Syria.

If we're going to make the argument that if a country is too evil to negotiate with, then why the fuck did we have talks with a country that's been starving it's people to death?

Because they had conditions that had to be met.

No one is saying we will not ever talk to Iran 1-on-1. We're saying that if we're going to "talk" (like N. Korea), they MUST meet certain demands before we do.


None

WolvenBear

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/16/08 05:18 AM

WolvenBear EVIL LEVEL 09

Sign-Up: 06/07/05

Posts: 1,717

OMG after being called Hitler Jr 5 million times in the last 3 seconds, Bush called all retarded Democrats Nazis appeasers because they want to force Israel o give up land to people who hate them!

That's almost as unfair as when we labeled the Southside Rapist a rapist.....

Cuppa-LettuceNog: In my town, cases of shoplifting crimes rose when McDonalds introduced the "Make it Bacon" option. It's possible for two things to be unrelated.


None

Elfer

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/16/08 09:35 AM

Elfer EVIL LEVEL 35

Sign-Up: 01/21/01

Posts: 11,785

At 5/15/08 08:36 PM, Memorize wrote:
At 5/15/08 07:36 PM, Ravariel wrote: You really do have a hard time with subtleties don't you?
That's all you have?

Subleties?

You would suck as a lawyer.

He's not trying to prove it in court, you know. In politics, it's all about the public opinion, and even if this can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it's still pretty blatant. Here's what happened:

<Obama> Hey guys, maybe we should try talking to Iran.
<Bush> Attention everyone, not naming any names here, but anyone who's willing to talk to Iran is pretty much just appeasing Hitler, you know? Not saying who, but I mean, you know.

Is it absolutely conclusive? No, it isn't. That doesn't mean that we can't infer what was probably going on. Get it?

If you're havin' girl problems, I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems, with bitches < 1%

BBS Signature

None

zoolrules

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/16/08 09:58 AM

zoolrules NEUTRAL LEVEL 01

Sign-Up: 05/16/08

Posts: 11

If it's an invoke of Godwin's law, then Godwin's law is fucked up.
Godwin's law means no using the Nazi's argument with no decent connection. Otherwise, what did we learn from history?

you are Nazi.


None

Grammer

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/16/08 02:48 PM

Grammer LIGHT LEVEL 36

Sign-Up: 06/26/04

Posts: 13,203

At 5/16/08 04:10 AM, Memorize wrote:
At 5/15/08 10:14 PM, Grammer wrote:
We're talking about a nation who seems to find it entertaining when people launch rockets into Israel randomly, killing civilians.
So let's ignore them.
1) We're not ignoring them.
2) We are talking to them.

Since when, lol


We're talking about a nation who frequently yells "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".
Who gives a flying fuck. They could be Nazi Germany reincarnate, you don't ignore your enemies because you don't like things they've said.
See above.

Damn idiot.

We're not talking to them. The President has said time and time again we shouldn't talk with them, that it'd be "appeasement" or dangerous, or w/e. Now you're saying we've been talking with them in secret all this time? Well then what the fuck is the President criticizing in his speech in Jerusalem if we're already doing what he said we shouldn't do?

So what kind of stupid shit would have unconditional (key word: Unconditional) talks with a country like this which shows no signs of actually following through with any requests?
The kind of stupid shit who thinks ignoring the enemy is a bad idea.
We're not ignoring you stupid fuck.

lol

We do talk to them. Iraq and the States both talk to Iran.

Tell that to the President

So quit spreading around your stupidity.

lol

If we're going to make the argument that if a country is too evil to negotiate with, then why the fuck did we have talks with a country that's been starving it's people to death?
Because they had conditions that had to be met.

That's sort of like children on a playground saying: "I'll only apologize for hitting you if you admit you were being stupid all along".

Check out my user page. JUST DO IT MOTHER FUCKER

BBS Signature

None

Grammer

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/16/08 02:49 PM

Grammer LIGHT LEVEL 36

Sign-Up: 06/26/04

Posts: 13,203

At 5/16/08 09:35 AM, Elfer wrote: <Obama> Hey guys, maybe we should try talking to Iran.
<Bush> Attention everyone, not naming any names here, but anyone who's willing to talk to Iran is pretty much just appeasing Hitler, you know? Not saying who, but I mean, you know.

Hahaha, I laughed

Check out my user page. JUST DO IT MOTHER FUCKER

BBS Signature

None

zoolrules

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/16/08 03:39 PM

zoolrules NEUTRAL LEVEL 01

Sign-Up: 05/16/08

Posts: 11

At 5/16/08 02:49 PM, Grammer wrote:
At 5/16/08 09:35 AM, Elfer wrote: <Obama> Hey guys, maybe we should try talking to Iran.
<Bush> Attention everyone, not naming any names here, but anyone who's willing to talk to Iran is pretty much just appeasing Hitler, you know? Not saying who, but I mean, you know.
Hahaha, I laughed

Hahaha it it made me laugh too.
but seriously now, talk to Iran? You obviously don't know the Muslim mentality. Well you'll learn the lesson when some country will get nuked by the name of Allah. (DONT attack them, Allah allowd them to nuke, it will be unethical to insult their religion)


None

SmilezRoyale

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/16/08 06:14 PM

SmilezRoyale FAB LEVEL 02

Sign-Up: 10/21/06

Posts: 3,290

reply to my above post.

This is how debate works; 1) Present Facts 2) Use logic to Interpret the facts 3) Then make conclusions.


None

SolInvictus

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/16/08 06:35 PM

SolInvictus EVIL LEVEL 17

Sign-Up: 10/15/05

Posts: 5,081

At 5/16/08 03:39 PM, zoolrules wrote: You obviously don't know the Muslim mentality.

i never knew being part of a certain religion made you think exactly like everyone else in that religion, irrelvant of sect or branch.

VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
Te Quiero Rammstein

BBS Signature

None

SmilezRoyale

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/16/08 06:42 PM

SmilezRoyale FAB LEVEL 02

Sign-Up: 10/21/06

Posts: 3,290

At 5/16/08 06:35 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
At 5/16/08 03:39 PM, zoolrules wrote: You obviously don't know the Muslim mentality.
i never knew being part of a certain religion made you think exactly like everyone else in that religion, irrelvant of sect or branch.

Muslim mentality is a bad way to describe something that you otherwise did not sucessfully invalidate.

Do you feel that the bush administration has consistency of tendencies, because it's not like obama wants talks with the Iranian people, he wants talks with the Iranian government. I never knew that the philosophies of a government and how it deals with foreign policy was such a mystery.

This is how debate works; 1) Present Facts 2) Use logic to Interpret the facts 3) Then make conclusions.


None

Grammer

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/16/08 07:30 PM

Grammer LIGHT LEVEL 36

Sign-Up: 06/26/04

Posts: 13,203

At 5/16/08 06:14 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: reply to my above post.

I appreciate the effort you put in your response but I honestly have nothing to respond to you with. Just keep in mind I never actually said Bush was bickering with Obama

Check out my user page. JUST DO IT MOTHER FUCKER

BBS Signature

None

Ravariel

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/16/08 07:59 PM

Ravariel DARK LEVEL 11

Sign-Up: 04/19/05

Posts: 2,181

At 5/15/08 08:36 PM, Memorize wrote: You would suck as a lawyer.
Then shut the fuck up.
You're an idiot...
It would be great though, if people like you weren't so laughable. lol.
Fucking idiot.
You're an idiot...
Stupid ass.
Then shut the fuck up.
Lol, you and your pathetic...
I really do wish you idiots would've done what you claiming and LEFT the US.
Then the world would be a MUCH better place.

Is that all you have? Insults and evasions? Weak.

And here I thought you might actually have a solid position for once. Silly me.

At 5/15/08 10:15 PM, Grammer wrote:
At 5/15/08 08:46 PM, poxpower wrote:
At 5/15/08 07:12 PM, Ravariel wrote:
At 5/15/08 06:54 PM, poxpower wrote: You know who else invoked Godwin's Law?
Your mom?
You know who else had a mom?
omfg hitler

Curses, foil'd again'd

At 5/16/08 04:10 AM, Memorize wrote:
The Bush admin had it right on North Korea. We had six party talks, used carrots and sticks, and they seem to be complying.
Yeah. That explains the nuclear facility that Israel blew up in Syria.

It also explains the fact that my dump was purple yesterday, too! Holy completely unrelated events, batman.

Nevemind that the "nuclear facility" wasn't aywhere near nuclear. Merely a stockpile (maybe) of old n. Korean missiles that they've had since WAY before the multilateral talks with n. Korea. So, basically, you're full of shit.

Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Heathenry. A forum for the more evolved to discuss religion.


None

domdom2323

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/18/08 06:39 AM

domdom2323 EVIL LEVEL 07

Sign-Up: 05/20/07

Posts: 16

How many countries don't like America? Quite a few, mainly European. How many countries does America hate? 98% of them. Seems to me that Bush is desperate to remain popular but not doing a great job of it.

Hey ho, the banjo's dead!!!


None

Memorize

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/19/08 12:32 AM

Memorize DARK LEVEL 21

Sign-Up: 06/12/04

Posts: 12,867

At 5/16/08 07:59 PM, Ravariel wrote:
Is that all you have? Insults and evasions? Weak.

Digging up insults and shrugging them off while using them as some weak attempt to get out of an argument, is merely an example of your failure.

At 5/16/08 02:48 PM, Grammer wrote:
Since when, lol

For quite a while.

We're not talking to them. The President has said time and time again we shouldn't talk with them, that it'd be "appeasement" or dangerous, or w/e. Now you're saying we've been talking with them in secret all this time? Well then what the fuck is the President criticizing in his speech in Jerusalem if we're already doing what he said we shouldn't do?

*sigh*

Not in secret. I've already made the distinction between a direct talk and "talking". We're not having a 1 on 1 with their leader, but we are telling Iran to back off and if they want any DIRECT talks, that there are conditions to be met, nevermind the fact that the Iraqi government is already talking with Iran.

Tell that to the President

He's speaking in your terms.

If we're going to make the argument that if a country is too evil to negotiate with, then why the fuck did we have talks with a country that's been starving it's people to death?
Because they had conditions that had to be met.
That's sort of like children on a playground saying: "I'll only apologize for hitting you if you admit you were being stupid all along".

Conditions, you dip.

If you want the US to back off... stop starving people, stop making weapons.

So I ask again: Why should we directly talk to them if they're not willing to do any one of those things regardless?


None

Memorize

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/19/08 12:34 AM

Memorize DARK LEVEL 21

Sign-Up: 06/12/04

Posts: 12,867


None

Grammer

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 5/19/08 05:45 PM

Grammer LIGHT LEVEL 36

Sign-Up: 06/26/04

Posts: 13,203

At 5/19/08 12:32 AM, Memorize wrote: Not in secret. I've already made the distinction between a direct talk and "talking". We're not having a 1 on 1 with their leader, but we are telling Iran to back off and if they want any DIRECT talks,

Well, to abstain from further confusion, I am thinking about direct talks.

that there are conditions to be met,

lol

nevermind the fact that the Iraqi government is already talking with Iran.

Yeah that's been working real great, by the way I think the Iraqis are still short on flower petals from Mahmoud's last visit to Iraq.

Conditions, you dip.

Conditions Iran obviously isn't going to fulfill. They're not going to apologize for saying crazy shit about Israel, and the whole purpose of direct talks is to get them to meet our conditions. They have no intention to talk with us because they don't give a fuck what we think.


If you want the US to back off... stop starving people, stop making weapons.

So I ask again: Why should we directly talk to them if they're not willing to do any one of those things regardless?

We're supposed to have talks to prevent those two above things. If he stopped abusing his people, and stopped making weapons, why the fuck would we need to talk with them?

Check out my user page. JUST DO IT MOTHER FUCKER

BBS Signature

All times are Eastern Daylight Time (GMT -4) | Current Time: 05:16 PM

<< Back

This topic is 2 pages long. [ 1 | 2 ]

<< < > >>
You need a Grounds Gold Account to post on the NG BBS! If you don't have one, click here to sign up now! It's fast, free, and easy — and opens up tons of great NG features!