Christopher Walken for President!

[NeonVomit]

I dont apologise for that rant. I just feel an overwhelming sadness about this all.

Why does it have to happen. Are we all just pawns in a sick power game?

[NordicStorm]

Maybe if it wasn't a threat to the US, it wasn't a practical move financially for the United States, but how can you say that the overall result of this war wasn't/isn't a good one? These people had an election, they're having a constitution, things are looking up and in a few years they'll be even able to take care of themselves.

The jury is still out on whether a functioning democratic Iraq is on the horizon. The election has changed very little so far, and I'm not sure the constitution will turn the tide either.

I think if you take some time to really read what he said, you'll see thats exactly what he was saying.

Okay, I'll try reading it again.

(two seconds later)

There. Nope, still not seeing it. He seems to be saying "Ha! Finally an American who agrees with me", not "Ha! I've discovered the long lost spokesperson for all of America, who has been repressed by the malevolent forces of the Zionist media conspiracy!"[1]

Its not my job to understand what she feels, its her job to explain it. But one should be a little more thorough when insulting her country, because someone might get the wrong idea. And I got the wrong idea. And it wasn't a wrong idea after all, it seems. It was correct, she hates USA.

And this you've managed to deduce from a shooting smilie and praise for the interstate infrastructure. Okay then. Is it okay if I conclude that you hate people of Arabic origin?

It is a forum where everyone is looking for an excuse to bash the USA. Simply, in many cases (not all) that is fueled by international propoganda. I don't even know why we're arguing in the first place, nordicstorm. I don't know what you're defending. I suppose its CC.

I'm defending myself, really. I'm not looking for an excuse to bash the USA.
Have I criticized the foreign policy (and the occasional domestic policy) of the current administration and of administrations past? Sure, but that does not constitute bashing the country any more than mentioning Generalissimo Putin constitutes bashing Russia.
So, I would like you to amend future statements with "everyone minus one".

I find disagreeing with your countries policies acceptable. I find outright hating your country just because x didn't win unacceptable. Do you still need clarification on this?

I don't need clarification on your position, I need clarification on why you feel that way, or rather why you feel so strongly about it.
Is it silly and not particularly reasonable? Yes. Unacceptable? Meh.

No, but having your essay say: "Finnish people are a bunch of communist losers, who amount to nothing. We can all go to hell" is wrong coming from a person who lives in Finland, born and raised. There is a distinct border between constructive criticism and outright hate for your country.

Okay, but don't you think I would be in a better position to determine whether Finns are communist losers who amount to nothing than a person not living in Finland?

Yes, but that should not be the only premise of you staying in the country.

I'm not sure why it's so unreasonable that people would choose to live in one country or another due to economic factors.

Don't even get me started on her! Oops too late.
She is a complete moron .

Yup. A mother who lost her child, complete moron.

I mean what a selfish fool.
She was alright with her son going and fighting in Iraq when he was getting paid for it, but when something happened to him, the entire principles of the war turn upside down? Shame on her!

Yeah well, you see, the thing is, her son died. When something happened to him, her whole world was turned upside down. Cutting her the tiniest amount of slack you can muster would perhaps be prudent.

She doesn't realize that to do the right thing, you have to make a sacrifice.

And upon further consideration, I'd venture to guess she reached the conclusion that losing her child was too much of a sacrifice.

If she was so against the war, she shouldn't have encouraged her son to go to Iraq.

Aah, but maybe, just maybe, she was for the war when it was actually about national security as opposed to nation building? Selfish? Sure, but hey, that's human nature.

And if she didn't encourage him and he went on his own free will even when she was against it, he died with honor and she should respect that.

But what good is it to die with honor when you can't be around to celebrate it afterwards?

She thinks that just because her son died, the USA should pull out of Iraq, effectively screwing the Iraqi population, having a regime worse than Hussein take over?

Well see now, you have yet to convince anyone that that's not what's going to happen anyway.

Bush even met with her, what exactly does she want? She is a fool!

I'd venture to guess she wants her son back alive.

I cant understand this topic!!!!

Well, clearly, when I said "Finally a candidate we can all get behind", I was wrong. He's a divider, not a uniter!


[1] I would like to apologize to any member of the malevolent forces of the Zionist media conspiracy who happened to take offense by my invoking you.

[fifthtea_sausage]

The jury is still out on whether a functioning democratic Iraq is on the horizon. The election has changed very little so far, and I'm not sure the constitution will turn the tide either.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the situation was much worse in the days of Saddam, who was/is nothing more than a murderer.

There. Nope, still not seeing it. He seems to be saying "Ha! Finally an American who agrees with me

I don't think that this is the first time he's come across an American who disagrees with the war in Iraq. Therefore, I have trouble believing what you say.

And this you've managed to deduce from a shooting smilie and praise for the interstate infrastructure. Okay then. Is it okay if I conclude that you hate people of Arabic origin?

It only takes a few inappropriate comments to judge a person. That is, if that person makes the right comments (or the wrong ones, in this case).
I do not hate people of Arabic origin, but i do frown upon Islam as a religion which is the basis of so much violence.

Is it silly and not particularly reasonable? Yes. Unacceptable? Meh.

Pajama Pajama, Potato, Potato.
And they say I don't have a sense of humor

Okay, but don't you think I would be in a better position to determine whether Finns are communist losers who amount to nothing than a person not living in Finland?

I do. But that doesn't mean that everything you say is the truth either.

I'm not sure why it's so unreasonable that people would choose to live in one country or another due to economic factors.

Economic factors and government welfare are really two different things, in my opinion. I live in the USA for economic factors - the job opportunities, etc. But welfare? Oh no. Thats different.

Yup. A mother who lost her child, complete moron.

Just because she lost her child, that doesn't mean that everything she says is true.

Yeah well, you see, the thing is, her son died. When something happened to him, her whole world was turned upside down. Cutting her the tiniest amount of slack you can muster would perhaps be prudent.

She believes that the word revolves around her, and that the basis of important world issues should be centered around the condition of her son. THats what i mean by selfish.

And upon further consideration, I'd venture to guess she reached the conclusion that losing her child was too much of a sacrifice.

It was not losing her child, it was the extremely minor risk of losing her child. She believes that whatever military action needs to be taken (assume it needs to be taken, for the sake of argument), it should not be done because of her so precious son.

Aah, but maybe, just maybe, she was for the war when it was actually about national security as opposed to nation building? Selfish? Sure, but hey, that's human nature.

Then she should have taken a stand against it at a random time after she realized it was more about nation-building. The death of her son should have had nothing to do with it. She should also not expect the US troops to pull out at this time, as it would leave the Iraqi people in utter havoc.

She is making unreasonable demands, and you believe her because her son died. Lots of peoples children died because of the war. Not a lot in the grand scheme of things when it comes to war, but a significant amount. But they didn't go psycho and begin protesting like a selfish fool.

But what good is it to die with honor when you can't be around to celebrate it afterwards?

In any case, I believe that if he someone found out about the behavior of his mother, he would be ashamed.

Well see now, you have yet to convince anyone that that's not what's going to happen anyway.

Time will tell. Don't expect all the answers for all the words problems for me. Its a lot easier to point fingers at me about various international issues as it is for me to look into the future and guesstimate a solution/result.

Its always easier to criticize something than it is to defend your position.

I'd venture to guess she wants her son back alive.

I personally don't care about what she wants. The world doesn't revolve around her.

Lastly, I would like to point out that my time is really short in these next few days. Though I would love to spent all day discussing politics, I really can't check back here every few hours and write pages in my defense. if you would care to settle this over msn messenger, nordicstorm, where it will be done in a more timely manner, then please send me a PM. Otherwise, I'll come here and continue to post. Just don't expect me to post here more than once a day (though I may) on an issue that we wont' come to an agreement to in even a year.

[NeonVomit]

So since you believe so strongly in this and don't see it as much of a big deal, why don't you go and enlist in the Army then? Just curious...

[StragOvariuS]

So since you believe so strongly in this and don't see it as much of a big deal, why don't you go and enlist in the Army then? Just curious...

heh, support is easy...but, put your balls on risk...oh man, everybody dissapear so fast that you wont find nobody for that. you know

[NeonVomit]

My point exactly. I wonder if he'd have such 'lofty' ideals if HIS ass was on the line or lost a family member...

[fifthtea_sausage]

Typical European attitude, thats why your country's been invaded by the Turks, and the city's 37% occupied by then to this day, as you said...
Its seems a general rule that Europeans are not willing to do the right thing just because there is a small risk.

Just because my "ass is on the line" I should just step down from the path of justice? Is it like...the Philippines who had one hostage killed in Iraq and immediately withdrew all their troops, just because a small risk? And Spain, which also did a similar thing?

If I lost a family member I would honor the ideals which he died for, not undermine them. And you can quote me on that.

[Beast_Pete]

Vomit and Strago were saying, that you should go to Iraq as well, if you find it so righteous.

The spanish army went out, because even with participating in the Iraqi war, they were just licking the ass of the USA. This war is the USA's business, not the Europeans'. Did we get anything in return for participating? The USA said so, that we would. I don't see it...

[Neorave]

Walken's campaign slogan: "GUESS WHAT...I GOT A FEVER...AND THE ONLY PRESCRIPTION, IS TO VOTE FOR ME...OR MORE COWBELL!!!" I tell ya, I don't think that man has ever had anything except cowbell.

THEN WHEN THE HELL WILL THE UNITED STATES COME CHARGING IN AND LIBERATE MY FUCKING COUNTRY? 37% OF CYPRUS HAS BEEN UNDER TURKISH MILITARY OCCUPATION FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS! WHAT ABOUT TIBET? WHAT ABOUT NORTH KOREA?

When our head will not be up Iraq's ass and poking into it.

[NeonVomit]

Typical European attitude, thats why your country's been invaded by the Turks, and the city's 37% occupied by then to this day, as you said...
Its seems a general rule that Europeans are not willing to do the right thing just because there is a small risk.

Just because my "ass is on the line" I should just step down from the path of justice? Is it like...the Philippines who had one hostage killed in Iraq and immediately withdrew all their troops, just because a small risk? And Spain, which also did a similar thing?

If I lost a family member I would honor the ideals which he died for, not undermine them. And you can quote me on that.

THAT has to be the most closed-minded, micro-viewed statement I've ever read in my life.

Europeans not willing to do the right thing? Kosovo ring any bells? WWII when Britain/France stood up to Germany when they invaded Poland? (2 years BEFORE the US joined the war)

You so obviously have absolutely no idea about what you're saying that it's not even funny. My country was invaded by the turks because of a long and complicated situation that is still debated to this very day. And a country that has a population of 500,000 has little chance against another country that has a population of 70 MILLION. We fought against them when they invaded. But who was going to win?

And what do you define as a 'small' risk? The 'right thing' for us to do in this situation, following your logic, would be to launch an all-out assault on the Turkish forces stationed on this island.

Lets get a numbers only breakdown. (Number of Cyprus troops: 15,000. Number of Turkish troops ONLY on Cyprus: 35,000. Number of total Turkish troops: Over 400,000)

The 'small' risk would be the complete distruction of our country. And rest assured, the USA would NEVER come to fight against their own staunch and much needed ally. Even if it would involve us becoming free. So, no, the USA is NOT about freedom and releasing people from oppression. That's just a weak excuse.

You have the typical American attitude of jumping into a situation without thinking of the consequences. The 'path of justice' in this case is one that isn't about justice at all. Justice cannot be delivered by criminals. You never see a thief being a judge.

[Pikkusielu]

I have only little to say and that little is 'oil'.

[NordicStorm]

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the situation was much worse in the days of Saddam, who was/is nothing more than a murderer.

I have never disputed that. However, it does not take a genius either to realize that if Iraq ultimately turns into Iran++ or if Iraq breaks in three following a brutal civil war causing unrest in the whole region, it will have been a pretty pointless exercise, not to mention a reckless one. (A "three-state solution" may not necessarily be a bad thing, it may ultimately prove to be the only viable solution, but it's the preceeding civil war I'm concerned about.) And as it looks right now, one can't be sure the coalition forces there are capable of preventing that from happening. And given the track record so far, one can't help but being a little pessimistic. I mean:
- No WMDs
- No Al-Qaeda connections
- Underestimated the insurgency (May 2003: "Mission accomplished!" Well, no.)
- The elections didn't stem the insurgency either ("It's the purple finger revolution!" Well, apparently not.)
- Abu Ghraib
- Not enough troops, and the ones that are there do not have enough equipment in form of body armour and such
- The training of Iraqi troops going extremely slowly and being extremely ineffective
- Recruitment goals missed by wide margins
- Congress slashes veteran benefits, thus ensuring that sacrificing a limb for your country is more attractive than ever
- Bombings in London and Madrid proves "the terrorist flypaper" theory false
- Iran's and North Korea's weapons programs are going unchecked in the mean time
- Afghanistan remains in chaos following the diversion of troops to Iraq


So, um, maybe the people advocating a withdrawal aren't complete morons.

I don't think that this is the first time he's come across an American who disagrees with the war in Iraq. Therefore, I have trouble believing what you say.

But he wasn't making the comment in regards to her stance on Iraq. It was in reference to the "America is doomed" comment. Which I thought was made in jest in the first place, but I think we've already established interpreting other people's posts isn't an exact science.

It only takes a few inappropriate comments to judge a person. That is, if that person makes the right comments (or the wrong ones, in this case).

Right. So, based on this comment you made:

I'm tired of Arabs; most are assholes like this.
We should invade them all. They are not capable of running their own countries.

is it okay if I conclude you hate people of Arabic origin?

I do not hate people of Arabic origin, but i do frown upon Islam as a religion which is the basis of so much violence.

I didn't mention Islam, I was talking about Arabs. And if you're frowning upon Islam, I'm hoping you're extending the same courtesy to Christianity and other religions. You should read the Bible some time, parts of it would make for an excellent Sam Peckinpah movie!
It's not as if Christianity has a peaceful past (or present, for that matter). Maybe, just maybe, it isn't ultimately the religion that is responsible, but the people abusing religion.

Pajama Pajama, Potato, Potato.
And they say I don't have a sense of humor

Well yeah, with such comedic statements as "[Cindy Sheehan] is a moron", you're definitely up there with the greats like George Carlin and Richard Pryor.

I do. But that doesn't mean that everything you say is the truth either.

Not necessarily, no. But I have never claimed that to be the case.

Economic factors and government welfare are really two different things, in my opinion. I live in the USA for economic factors - the job opportunities, etc. But welfare? Oh no. Thats different.

Depends on your definition of welfare, then. I would consider affordable schooling or healthcare, which may or may not be in the form of "government welfare", to be economical factors. Now, if you move to a certain country just to collect unemployment, that's something else.

Just because she lost her child, that doesn't mean that everything she says is true.

"True" in what sense? She wants to get the hell out of Iraq, how can that be "true" or "false"? Are you saying she's lying, she doesn't really want you to get out of Iraq?

She believes that the word revolves around her, and that the basis of important world issues should be centered around the condition of her son. THats what i mean by selfish.

Let's see. Maybe, just maybe, she realised that her son's death may have been in vain because of the gross incompetence in the handling of this war? Maybe, just maybe, she thinks that it's completely unnecessary for more families to go through what she's going through when the end result is not going to be to our liking?
But of course, she's a selfish moron, and you don't give a shit about her. Compassionate conservatism at its finest.

It was not losing her child, it was the extremely minor risk of losing her child.

Well, given that the son, in fact, died, the risk apparently wasn't minor enough.

She believes that whatever military action needs to be taken (assume it needs to be taken, for the sake of argument), it should not be done because of her so precious son.

No. She believes that about 1900 grieving American families is too high of a cost. Now, she may be selfish, you may call her a moron, she might be unreasonable, the casualties may be extremely low compared to other wars, but she is entitled to her beliefs, and history may yet prove her stance to be the right one. If the outcome is Iran++, it will have been too much of a cost.

Then she should have taken a stand against it at a random time after she realized it was more about nation-building. The death of her son should have had nothing to do with it. She should also not expect the US troops to pull out at this time, as it would leave the Iraqi people in utter havoc.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that her son's death makes her more emotionally invested in this whole conflict? Maybe she didn't understand the (out of her perspective) pointlessness of the war until now?
What makes you think US troops staying in Iraq will be able to prevent havoc? As I said, the jury is still out on that, although admittedly it is leaning towards complete and utter disaster at the moment. I'm not optimistic the new constitution will turn the tide.

She is making unreasonable demands, and you believe her because her son died.
Lots of peoples children died because of the war. Not a lot in the grand scheme of things when it comes to war, but a significant amount. But they didn't go psycho and begin protesting like a selfish fool.

Okay then. So if I lost a family member to a drunk driving accident, I would not be entitled to "go psycho", like the selfish fool I am, and actively start working for preventing further drunk driving accidents.
A flawed analogy? Oh, how I wished it was.

In any case, I believe that if he someone found out about the behavior of his mother, he would be ashamed.

How long have you been friends with him?

Time will tell. Don't expect all the answers for all the words problems for me. Its a lot easier to point fingers at me about various international issues as it is for me to look into the future and guesstimate a solution/result.

I'm not expecting anything from you. I am, however, expecting a little something from your government in terms of accountability. Not holding my breath on that one, though.

Its always easier to criticize something than it is to defend your position.

What? I defend my position by explaining why I believe my arguments outweigh someone else's arguments. By necessity I have to criticize the other person's arguments, yes? And consequently, the person I'm arguing against must criticize my arguments, yes?

I personally don't care about what she wants. The world doesn't revolve around her.

Good for you.

Lastly, I would like to point out that my time is really short in these next few days. Though I would love to spent all day discussing politics, I really can't check back here every few hours and write pages in my defense.

I don't post every few hours either, so that's fine.

if you would care to settle this over msn messenger, nordicstorm, where it will be done in a more timely manner, then please send me a PM.

Well, I'm not sure what it is that needs to be settled, but the difference in timezones would be problematic.

Otherwise, I'll come here and continue to post. Just don't expect me to post here more than once a day (though I may) on an issue that we wont' come to an agreement to in even a year.

That's fine. You post when it's convenient, as do I. I don't think the necessary outcome of a discussion must be agreement, though. I don't think there necessarily has to be an outcome, for that matter

Typical European attitude, thats why your country's been invaded by the Turks, and the city's 37% occupied by then to this day, as you said...
Its seems a general rule that Europeans are not willing to do the right thing just because there is a small risk.

Well goodie, because NeonVomit speaks for all Europeans, all 800 million of us, now doesn't he?
"Small risk" my ass. Turkey is one of the most well-armed nations in the world, and you're talking about small risks. You ONLY go to war when there is absolutely no chance of a satisfactorial peaceful solution (which also my roundabout way of saying it would be most unwise to attempt solving the Cyprus conflict with further military means. Too much blood has already been shed.)

Btw, I'm going to conclude that fifthea_sausage hates Europe. It's quite clear from his statements. For those of you keeping score at home, that's Arabs and Europeans so far. I'm looking forward to discussing the legal status of Taiwan or the Kashmir conflict.

Just because my "ass is on the line" I should just step down from the path of justice?

No, but you better be damn sure you're actually on the path of justice. Oh, and do bring a compass and a map, otherwise there is a risk you may stray off the path of justice.

If I lost a family member I would honor the ideals which he died for, not undermine them. And you can quote me on that.

If I lost a family member to a war in which the ideals are unclear, to a war that was started on false premises in the first place, to a war in which my family member needn't have died if the war had been properly managed, to a war that has been so badly handled the outcome may be disastrous, you can bet your ass that I would do everything in my power to put an end to that war. And you may quote me on that. And you may scream at the top of your lungs what a selfish moron I am who thinks the world revolves around him.

[Jaakko]

I always thought a person was free to believe in what political affiliation they wanted?

And I always thought freedom is being able to choose your enemies, not getting rid of them all

[browneyedgirl]

@Jaakko, soon the USA will have 99% of the world to choose from if they keep pissing people off!

BTW, Mr. Walken sends his love!

[Beast_Pete]

@BEG: unfortunately, I can't see the picture.

[StragOvariuS]

If I lost a family member I would honor the ideals which he died for, not undermine them. And you can quote me on that.

how? you will put a medal in his/her bedroom instead of the person? This will heal the wounds of your family? no, right? Lose a F. member on war never was a reason to be proud...specially in this stupid war

[browneyedgirl]

@BEG: unfortunately, I can't see the picture.

I guess the server of that page is down, or it was taken off. Anyway, it was a pic of Walken with a caption under it which said, "What are you Fuckheads talkin' about?" Something like that. It was kinda funny.
Maybe the pic will come back later--if not I'll edit it with another link to that pic, there are several.

[NeonVomit]

This thread sucks. I'm not reading it anymore. It's like running around in circles.

Checking out.

[browneyedgirl]

Chris is PISSED!

The movie, GOD'S ARMY, is the same as, THE PROPHECY. Well, no matter the name, its a very good movie with Walken as Archangel Gabriel--who is very authoritarian to say the least.