Shop Tom Bihn
1-800-729-9607
emailus@tombihn.com
Tom Bihn Forums: Community discussion on travel bags, laptop bags, and backpacks. Tom Bihn has been designing and making bags since 1972. The best materials and innovative construction.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 65
  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    57
    He already GOT Saddam Hussein.
    Yep.
    And what a great thing.

    Killing innocent people is wrong. I'm sorry you don't feel that way.
    Actually, I never said otherwise.
    But once again, innocent civilians are not intentionally targeted by coalition forces (unlike how Saddam and his kind behaved in the past and how his kind, and the Militant Islamics, continue to behave even now).

    It's very sad.
    It's very sad that people didn't really concern themselves about the welfare of the Iraqi people until the U.S. and its allies decided to go in. As one Iraqi (who wanted Saddam gone) indicated: Why is everyone only now concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people? Where was their "concern" when Saddam was having his people systematically butchered, tortured, raped, and killed over the span of 20-30 years? But oh no -- it's only when America actually finally does something about the problem, that people want to scream in "outrage" about the innocents. What about the innocents who have been dug up out of mass graves -- numbers of bodies found upwards of 400,000 to perhaps totaling 1,000,000 by the time all the graves are uncovered . . . . . . but I guess they're not important, since it was Saddam who was responsible for their deaths . . . . wrong man to blame -- darn!
    0 0
     

  2. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    37
    So it's okay for us to kill a "few" since Hussein killed a bunch? Interesting logic.
    0 0
     

  3. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    57
    So it's okay for us to kill a "few" since Hussein killed a bunch? Interesting logic.
    Rather, it's the "logic" expressed above that's fairly interesting, yet ironic . . . .
    Last edited by Cyn; 07-22-2004 at 02:33 PM.
    0 0
     

  4. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2
    my english aint to good so please forgive.

    Okay I've seen 911, nice movie, but not all you see is true, some things are pulled out of context. I do not thing Bush is an Idiot, the people that believe everything he says are;) . Saddam is an animal, i've been thinking this for a very long time, but he was put there and supported by the us goverment as an counterweight to Iran. The let him stay afther daddy bush kicked his ass at the last war, why, same reasons as before, they considered Iran to be an bigger danger. After this war saddam killed a lot of innocent iraqi's, I blame this on daddy bush. There are no weapons of mass destruction and there is no effidence that there would be any in the near future, and what about the wdm's america owns, thats allright??, they allready have proven that the would use them, japan, vietnam, afghanistan, iraq etc etc. No other country has ever used wdm's as much as the us have done. So I aren't they the biggest danger, and then I do not mean the people but just the few in power.

    Then about the label, I think its funny. I think its freedom of speech, although some have a strange view on freedom of speech, the think they can say everything but if somebody says something about them its considered anti patriotic.

    Watching 911, seeing bush sitting there when he was told what happend, a could understand how he must have been feeling. I do not disaprove of his reaction, it made him human. I thing after that bush lost controle to people like chaney en rumsfeld, I think they are more dangerous then the president himself.


    The american people deserve an better government. Doesn't matter if its an republican or democrat, as long as it ae not the people that are in power right now.

    And remember daily more people die of hunger then of planes crashing into buildings, so lets stop arguing and fight the real terror.


    greetz from holland
    0 0
     

  5. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    1
    Originally posted by Cyn
    Rather, it's the "logic" expressed above that's fairly interesting, yet ironic . . . .
    Cyn,

    Further to the subject of logic - your argument seems by logical extension to agree with the supposition that Timothy McVeigh was less vile than Pol Pot by virtue of an order of magnitude less slaughter. For some perspective here, have a look at Iraq Body Count:

    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

    Maybe you will make a distinction by the US's supposedly more amiable motives. By extension then, you would accept that killing 74,000 (mostly civilians) at Nagasaki was excusable since it was effective for it's intended purpose - to intimidate the USSR & thus curtailing it's territorial ambitions in the post-war shake-out (although having the unintended consequence of accelerating its atomic weapons programs). An argument that seeks to place the bar for the moral high ground based on some thousands less killed by the US by accident than deliberately by Saddam is repellant.

    In any case, Iraq was invaded as the culmination of a plan that was initiated almost immediatly after Bush moved into the White House - 9/11 provided a (to put it mildly) oblique causis beli. The Bush Admin. started staging the necessary personnel & equipment for the invasion in the fall of 2001. Saddam was working assiduously to undermine the sanctions because they were working and allowing the weapons inspectors to do their jobs (and please fact-check before asserting that Saddam kicked them out) would have continued to prevent him from acquiring WMD as they had effectivly done for considerable time.

    The final analysis shows that 1) invading Iraq has weakened the US's position re: cooperation with other countries for counter-terrorism 2) has left the US more rather than less vulnerable to attack 3) created a rallying point for recruiting into al Qaeda (as Mubarak said before the invasion to Colin Powell - now you have one Bin Laden, if you invade Iraq you'll have hundreds).

    I could go on, but I suggest that you temper your enthusiasm for GWB's policies with a closer and more realistic look at their effects to ourselves and those more directly caught in the cross-fire.

    GD
    Last edited by geodok; 10-11-2004 at 12:17 PM.
    0 0
     

  6. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1

    How sad

    Its funny that Americans are so sensitive. Boo-hoo, don't pick on the president!

    Guess what?!? GWB IS a moron. He HAS made MANY mistakes. I don't see why people are so sensitive about a little CRITICISM. People who cannot accept the fact that half of America is dissatisified with Shrubwa are nothing more than Sheeple!

    That being said, I would *never* fight for Bush (or anyone else, and NO I do not support Kerry either) in Iraq. I don't fight for oil. Sorry. I love my country and I'll defend it to the death from terrorists, invaders or if need be, our own government.

    That being said, I think the label is very clever and is nothing more than political satire. Feel free to boycott, as that is your American right (for now). I will defend to death your right to have freedom and choice. Its sad that the Bush regime is doing nothing but taking away freedoms in the most facist ways possible.
    0 0
     

  7. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3
    Originally posted by MammaG
    Go see Fahrenheit 9/11 and then tell me how honorable Bush is.
    You have GOT TO BE KIDDING! You fell for that crud? Oh man......you definately got suckered. tsk, tsk, tsk.
    0 0
     

  8. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    16
    Did you actually see Fahrenheit 9/11? Or was Rush Limbaugh's review of it enough for you?
    And referring to your other recent post complaining about TOM BIHN's mixing business and politics: the ex-CEO of Halliburton sits in the White House having his assistants write no-bid contracts for his old company, and Tom Bihn is mixing politics and business?
    Too bad you make me laugh!
    0 0
     

  9. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1
    Originally posted by CharlieL3
    No one died from Clinton being set up in a perjury trap about consensual oral sex.
    You have no regard for the millions that gave their lives to promote life itself, only to be spat upon like so much useless dirt by a cruel participant in this scandal!

    ;-)

    (Personally, I disliked both Clinton and Bush...)
    0 0
     

  10. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3
    Originally posted by Biteme
    Did you actually see Fahrenheit 9/11? Or was Rush Limbaugh's review of it enough for you?
    And referring to your other recent post complaining about TOM BIHN's mixing business and politics: the ex-CEO of Halliburton sits in the White House having his assistants write no-bid contracts for his old company, and Tom Bihn is mixing politics and business?
    Too bad you make me laugh!
    I wouldn't pay a dime to see that sack of pooey's movie....no way in the world you would ever see me help line that POS Michael Moores pockets by patronizing his movie that has been proved to be packed full of lies. And as you can see, with the results of the election, NO ONE FELL FOR THAT CRAP! In fact he probably did more to turn Americans off than help Kerry's cause. I would have loved to have seen MM's, The Boss, Dixie Chicks and John Bon Jovi's faces when Kerry lost. That would have been precious.

    Question to you>>>>>>>>>>DID YOU SEE FARENHYPE 911?


    And just for the record.......I have not ever listened to Rush Limbaugh......
    0 0
     

  11. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    57
    Did you actually see Fahrenheit 9/11?
    Did you actually see FahrenHYPE 9/11?
    How about Celsius 41.11?
    And did you actually read the info out there that has debunked Moore's erroneous and intentionally misleading allegations in his piece of propoganda?
    0 0
     

  12. #42
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16
    I'm hardly a poster child of defensive for the "right-of-center" but I will say this as a defender of all things liberty -- expression, religion, among others ....

    As infumed as some are on the "left/progressive" there's huge irony in their vitriolic intolerance. Disagree with policy, yes, protest, yes, but the downright hatred, crude and brash curses ... that won't get anything done (as the election showed). Who's really the "intolerant" ones here?

    And about Michael Moore --- as an artist, I'll be the first to defend his right to create, to make, to document. But what his film also showed was (a) Americans are that stupid in terms of believing everything they see or read; (b) filmmakers are "makers" precisely that. They have a product, they want to make money. No need to confuse them with legislators, lawyers, politicians, academics, etc. (c) Michael Moore lives on the Upper West Side Manhattan, and surely, not in a shack.

    As a person of color, I frankly despise it when an "upwardly mobile" caucasian "speaks" for all the oppressed in society.
    When your pocketing millions from your "documentary". you're not oppressed. Let's get that straight. The right to make it? Of course. The right to protest? Certainly. Oppressed? Pu-l-l-ease. I need a laugh every now and then and that was a hearty one.
    0 0
     

  13. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1
    Originally posted by djknyc
    And about Michael Moore --- as an artist, I'll be the first to defend his right to create, to make, to document. But what his film also showed was (a) Americans are that stupid in terms of believing everything they see or read; (b) filmmakers are "makers" precisely that. They have a product, they want to make money. No need to confuse them with legislators, lawyers, politicians, academics, etc. (c) Michael Moore lives on the Upper West Side Manhattan, and surely, not in a shack.
    I'm a liberal who was a Howard Dean supporter and I can't stand Michael Moore, for all the reasons you listed. He also has a tendency to stretch the truth in his films. I think of him as the Bill O'Reilly of the left.

    Of course, if I say this around any other liberals who weren't my friends, I'd get attacked.

    But while Michael Moores half truths and sensationalism bother me, I don't think his lies are half as dangerous as the lies of the conservative Republicans who are in Bush's camp or rally around him.

    Remember back in 2000 when Bush's people spread rumors around that John McCain liked breast cancer and had fathered an illegitimate interracial child so he'd lose the primary? I think that's a really good example of exactly what kind of values these ultra-conservative Republicans have.
    Last edited by mejane; 11-08-2004 at 10:40 AM.
    0 0
     

  14. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    57
    Originally posted by djknyc
    I'm hardly a poster child of defensive for the "right-of-center" but I will say this as a defender of all things liberty -- expression, religion, among others ....

    As infumed as some are on the "left/progressive" there's huge irony in their vitriolic intolerance. Disagree with policy, yes, protest, yes, but the downright hatred, crude and brash curses ... that won't get anything done (as the election showed). Who's really the "intolerant" ones here?

    And about Michael Moore --- as an artist, I'll be the first to defend his right to create, to make, to document. But what his film also showed was (a) Americans are that stupid in terms of believing everything they see or read; (b) filmmakers are "makers" precisely that. They have a product, they want to make money. No need to confuse them with legislators, lawyers, politicians, academics, etc. (c) Michael Moore lives on the Upper West Side Manhattan, and surely, not in a shack.

    As a person of color, I frankly despise it when an "upwardly mobile" caucasian "speaks" for all the oppressed in society.
    When your pocketing millions from your "documentary". you're not oppressed. Let's get that straight. The right to make it? Of course. The right to protest? Certainly. Oppressed? Pu-l-l-ease. I need a laugh every now and then and that was a hearty one.
    Awesome post -- :cool:
    0 0
     

  15. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    california
    Posts
    7

    That Wonderful Label

    Geez- I wish someone in the U.S. had the nerve to do this. What a smile it brought to me. Never mind 'the boycott' by narrow minded, myopic republicans. They are notorious outwardly self righteous and inwardly the worst criminals on the planet. Whatever they boycott, I will make up for by buying 10 times as many.
    From William Shakespeare:

    "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of
    war
    in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic
    fervor,
    for patriotism is indeed a double-edged
    sword.
    It both emboldens the blood, just as it
    narrows the mind...

    And when the drums of war have reached a
    fever pitch and the blood
    boils with hate and the mind has closed, the
    leader will have no
    need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.
    Rather, the citizenry,
    infused with fear and blinded with
    patriotism, will offer up all of
    their rights unto the leader, and gladly so.

    How do I know?

    For this is what I have done.

    And I am Caesar."
    0 0
     

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •