Pavlov. The name rings a bell.
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
So, why were we in Iraq?
Quote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 08:05:31 PMQuote from: Semicolon on January 11, 2011, 08:01:48 PMQuote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:54:29 PMQuote from: parts on January 11, 2011, 07:49:29 PMQuote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:40:16 PMQuote from: Semicolon on January 11, 2011, 07:38:17 PMQuote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:34:32 PMAnd also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2" There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.We might not have won it by ourselfs but without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape. We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies. As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agreeI'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism. You're wrong. All governments have a responsibility to act in the interests of their citizens, whatever those interests may be.I disagree with that. I think governments have a duty to stand up for what they see as the right thing to do.I'm not really interested in debating this at the moment though. TBH I'm more pissed at DirtDawg and would like to know if he's for real with his comments.Very well, although I still disagree with your opinion.
Quote from: Semicolon on January 11, 2011, 08:01:48 PMQuote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:54:29 PMQuote from: parts on January 11, 2011, 07:49:29 PMQuote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:40:16 PMQuote from: Semicolon on January 11, 2011, 07:38:17 PMQuote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:34:32 PMAnd also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2" There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.We might not have won it by ourselfs but without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape. We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies. As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agreeI'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism. You're wrong. All governments have a responsibility to act in the interests of their citizens, whatever those interests may be.I disagree with that. I think governments have a duty to stand up for what they see as the right thing to do.I'm not really interested in debating this at the moment though. TBH I'm more pissed at DirtDawg and would like to know if he's for real with his comments.
Quote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:54:29 PMQuote from: parts on January 11, 2011, 07:49:29 PMQuote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:40:16 PMQuote from: Semicolon on January 11, 2011, 07:38:17 PMQuote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:34:32 PMAnd also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2" There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.We might not have won it by ourselfs but without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape. We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies. As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agreeI'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism. You're wrong. All governments have a responsibility to act in the interests of their citizens, whatever those interests may be.
Quote from: parts on January 11, 2011, 07:49:29 PMQuote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:40:16 PMQuote from: Semicolon on January 11, 2011, 07:38:17 PMQuote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:34:32 PMAnd also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2" There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.We might not have won it by ourselfs but without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape. We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies. As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agreeI'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.
Quote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:40:16 PMQuote from: Semicolon on January 11, 2011, 07:38:17 PMQuote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:34:32 PMAnd also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2" There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.We might not have won it by ourselfs but without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape. We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies. As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree
Quote from: Semicolon on January 11, 2011, 07:38:17 PMQuote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:34:32 PMAnd also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2" There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.
Quote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 07:34:32 PMAnd also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2" There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction
Jesus died on the cross to show us that BDSM is a legitimate form of love.
There is only one truth and it is that people do have penises of different sizes and one of them is the longest.
Quote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 08:21:52 PMPersonally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction I reckon he'll be back.
Quote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 08:21:52 PMPersonally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction Possibly, although he is responding to other threads (which I see popping up in my "Unread Posts" screen). Maybe he's just busy.
Quote from: Semicolon on January 11, 2011, 08:23:23 PMQuote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 08:21:52 PMPersonally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction Possibly, although he is responding to other threads (which I see popping up in my "Unread Posts" screen). Maybe he's just busy.The board isn't that busy, and he doesn't seem to have been making long posts elsewhere
Quote from: DirtDawg on January 11, 2011, 06:41:24 PMI think I have made my position quite clear over the past evening.I live in a country that invites one to defend oneself, upon principle. Not all of our populace can do so, however. Those retard throw-backs often expect us who CAN defend them to step forward every time the need arises.If not, then they ALL end up in the evening news as horror stories.Guess what? Bullets are expensive! The British defeated the Argentinians without outside assistance.
I think I have made my position quite clear over the past evening.I live in a country that invites one to defend oneself, upon principle. Not all of our populace can do so, however. Those retard throw-backs often expect us who CAN defend them to step forward every time the need arises.If not, then they ALL end up in the evening news as horror stories.Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
Quote from: Semicolon on January 11, 2011, 07:34:23 PMQuote from: DirtDawg on January 11, 2011, 06:41:24 PMI think I have made my position quite clear over the past evening.I live in a country that invites one to defend oneself, upon principle. Not all of our populace can do so, however. Those retard throw-backs often expect us who CAN defend them to step forward every time the need arises.If not, then they ALL end up in the evening news as horror stories.Guess what? Bullets are expensive! The British defeated the Argentinians without outside assistance.Oh yeah. Did anyone make a notation?
Quote from: Butterflies on January 11, 2011, 08:21:52 PMPersonally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction It's not an uncommon American viewpoint. He seems to be saying you think our guns are bad until you need the protection of them. He may have been speaking of his fellow anti-gun Americans as well, but I can't speak for him or be certain. Though he could have phrased it more diplomatically to make it an easier pill to swallow. He doesn't seem the diplomatic type though.
