Arab control of ports?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:17 pm

BSmack wrote:

Got it.

Whatever.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:32 pm

I dare say you just made a comparison to Hitler there Dio.

Let me know when you figure out how badly you fucked yourself.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:45 pm

No problem.

Let me know when you figure out how stupid your 'argument' is to begin with.

And the comparison was to Stalin, dumbfuck.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:23 pm

Diogenes wrote:No problem. Let me know when you figure out how stupid your 'argument' is to begin with. And the comparison was to Stalin, dumbfuck.

You ought to change your nic to Diogenes 3.1, because it is obvious that you have 16 bit capabilities when it comes to understanding your own smack as it upsides your head.

But here, I'll help you along. Ask yourself these questions.

Who was Stalin fighting?

Who was Saddam fighting?

Why were we dealing with these dictators?

Were we not attempting to use these dictators as pawns against other powers?

Why must you continue to use Hitler comparisons when you criticize others for the same thing?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:45 pm

BSmack wrote:Why must you continue to use Hitler comparisons when you criticize others for the same thing?

Link?

I make the comparison because it is obvious and to the point and your whole diversionary 'point' is idiotic to begin with.

Any other stupid questions?

fix · Post by **fix** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:58 pm

Diogenes wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Diogenes wrote:I guess Saudi Arabia and Pakistan aren't oiur allies in the WOT either.
Not really, as BSmack pointed out.

Yes really, as I corrected.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:France, Germany and Canada should be our allies in the War on Terror, as should all peace-loving nations.
France and Germany had conflicting agendas, namely being Sadaam's ally in the Graft for Oil program.

And Canada is still irrelevant.

Canada's irrelevant?

Without our oil, you'd be fucked.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:08 pm

Otis wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote: Not really, as BSmack pointed out.

Yes really, as I corrected.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:France, Germany and Canada should be our allies in the War on Terror, as should all peace-loving nations.
France and Germany had conflicting agendas, namely being Sadaam's ally in the Graft for Oil program.

And Canada is still irrelevant.
Canada's irrelevant?

Without our oil, you'd be fucked.

So go ahead and cut off trade with the US, we'll see whose economy goes into a taildive.

But the point I was making (if you look at the context) is that you are politically and militarily irrelevant, if that makes you feel better.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:23 pm

A canadian running "we'll cut off your oil" smack?

Remind me again how well that worked out for the Iraqis when they started talking all silly?

And we like you even less than we liked the Iraqis.

Don't think for one second that America's current bloodlust wouldn't be best satiated by canadian fodder.

fix · Post by **fix** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:49 pm

Diogenes wrote:
Otis wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Yes really, as I corrected.
France and Germany had conflicting agendas, namely being Sadaam's ally in the Graft for Oil program.

And Canada is still irrelevant.
Canada's irrelevant?

Without our oil, you'd be fucked.
So go ahead and cut off trade with the US, we'll see whose economy goes into a taildive.

But the point I was making (if you look at the context) is that you are politically and militarily irrelevant, if that makes you feel better.

Right..

We're so militarily irrelevant

Nobody said we'd cut trade off, but don't think that you're the only trade out there. China's money is just as good.

and Dins not unlike Iraq, you'd be hard pressed to find even one ally that would support any such action against Canada.
Fact is, we don't mind looking down at our neighbours to the south and sharing the oil.. just as long as you're paying for it.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:57 pm

BSmack wrote:
Why must you continue to use Hitler comparisons when you criticize others for the same thing?

It's a debate/propaganda tactic the neo conservatives picked up on from Strauss - He even coined a cute little psuedo Latin phrase for it - when in an arguement, facing criticism or justifying a position, compare your opponent to Hitler - or squawk about the holocaust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:01 pm

Go ahead.

Invading Canada will be just like Stalingrad.

...but with more hockey.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:03 pm

Dr_Phibes wrote:...the neo conservatives...

ahem

They prefer to be called "New Wilsonians" or "Hard Wilsonians" now.

Did you not get Horowitz's memo?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:08 pm

Otis wrote: and Dins not unlike Iraq, you'd be hard pressed to find even one ally that would support any such action against Canada.

But here's what canadians just don't get --

When it came time for other nations to make the "them or us" decision, we'd have to point your "country" out on a freaking map to the heads-of-state responsible for making the decision.

Prime Minister, we're drumming up support for our invasion and occupation of canada. Are you with us or against us?

Who?

Canada.

Canada who? Is that one of those former Soviet states?

Yes, Mr Prime Minister, it is.

Oh. Whatever you guys think is best. We never liked people who speak Swedish, anyway.

Dude, it's fucking canada...get over yourselves.

Oh, and while I have your ear...LEARN TO DRIVE, YOU IDIOTS!

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:15 pm

Dr_Phibes wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Why must you continue to use Hitler comparisons when you criticize others for the same thing?

It's a debate/propaganda tactic the neo conservatives picked up on from Strauss - He even coined a cute little psuedo Latin phrase for it - when in an arguement, facing criticism or justifying a position, compare your opponent to Hitler - or squawk about the holocaust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

A) Wrong thread.
B) If you bothered to read the link, Strauss coined the term to describe the falaciousness of making unfounded comparisons to Hitler or Nazism...

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewto ... 73&start=0

C) Making a general comparison to a nation using another against a common foe doesn't apply. I could have compared France using the American colonies against Britain, but the historicaly ignorant here probably wouldn't get it.

D) Canada is still irrelevant.

Sorry about your ongoing case of national penis envy...

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:54 pm

No, it's the right thread as you are employing it as a tactic - as are they in that thread. Association fallacy is a massive part of the language in American political debate - particularly the articles you draw information from.. it's unfortunate.

"but the historicaly ignorant here probably wouldn't get it."

Your head is so far up your arse it's shocking, oh historically enlightened one.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:20 pm

Martyred wrote:
Dr_Phibes wrote:...the neo conservatives...
ahem

They prefer to be called "New Wilsonians" or "Hard Wilsonians" now.

Did you not get Horowitz's memo?

Are you sure you don't mean Max Boot? Not Jewish enough, I guess....

Association fallacy is a massive part of the language in American political debate...

And yet there is no fallacy in either of the examples I provided.

Mississippi Neck · Post by **Mississippi Neck** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:53 pm

Otis wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote: Not really, as BSmack pointed out.

Yes really, as I corrected.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:France, Germany and Canada should be our allies in the War on Terror, as should all peace-loving nations.
France and Germany had conflicting agendas, namely being Sadaam's ally in the Graft for Oil program.

And Canada is still irrelevant.
Canada's irrelevant?

Without our oil, you'd be fucked.

Oh not so fast. We'd declare you had WMD's and be there in no time. Like a hot knife through butter my friend.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:03 pm

Has anyone noticed the total fucking irony of the Canadians chiming in on a thread about port security?

While we're breaking down the nationality of the 9/11 hijackers?

Ang · Post by **Ang** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:21 am

I realize that the Canada thread went elsewhere, and happy about that, but have a few things to say about the port thing.

It is really easy to get up in arms about our port security being sold out to others, and I see the alarm in that sale going to an Arab country...but I wonder how many of us really knew about our port security before this whole subject came up. How many folks here actually knew that our port security was contracted to a British firm? I didn't. Some of you may have known that, but I would bet good money that a lot of follks that are totally pissed off right now at the sale had no idea that our ports had foreign interests providing security.

So, why should we be so alarmed? Wasn't the regular opinion at the time of the Iraq war decision one that said that we should trust our allies and cooperate with them? We should be more global...everyone said. We shouldn't just shut ourselves in and act like a trantrum baby in the world scene. We need to work with others, even if they don't always agree with us. Isn't that what is happening in the port deal? Whatever happened to work with others on the global stage?

What really pisses me off is that I just read 18 pages of posts about the port sale and only two or three made the point that there was not an American company prepared to provide the service. Ever wonder why US companies don't do that? We don't support them

We all bitch and moan about how the oil companies both domestic and international totally rule our lives, but I see little to no effort or interest in how to get ourselves out of that. We have so much potential for energy independence but we all sit around and whine and don't even give a thought to asking our elected officials to do something about it. We just want our lives to stay the same and when our elected officials do just that to keep our fat asses cool with the cheap oil we need, we hate them for it because it involves doing business with folks we hate.

Thing is, as long as we continue doing the same, we are bound to the Arab states. That has been status quo as long as any of us has been living, and both Republican and Democrat adminstrations have towed the line. It really doesn't matter the party. The only thing that will matter is the people happy about it, because their guy is at the helm.

You want a change? It ain't gonna happen with a party change. It will happen when real people insist on a different way on our national energy. Anything else is just pissing in the wind.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:51 pm

Ang wrote:It is really easy to get up in arms about our port security being sold out to others, and I see the alarm in that sale going to an Arab country...but I wonder how many of us really knew about our port security before this whole subject came up. How many folks here actually knew that our port security was contracted to a British firm? I didn't. Some of you may have known that, but I would bet good money that a lot of follks that are totally pissed off right now at the sale had no idea that our ports had foreign interests providing security.

So, why should we be so alarmed?

Because selling port operations to a country whose nationals were involved in 9-11 is a bad idea. Hypotheticly speaking, I may not know that I have cancer, but you can damn sure bet that once I find out, I'm going to get some fucking chemotherapy or radiation or whatever is needed to take care of the problem. The same goes here. Just because people did not realize how completely fucked our port security is, doesn't mean we shouldn't be alarmed once we found out.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:45 am

Ang wrote: You want a change? It ain't gonna happen with a party change. It will happen when real people insist on a different way on our national energy. Anything else is just pissing in the wind.

Brilliant.

Lost on this crowd, but brilliant nonetheless.

The righties on this board think "alternative energy" means getting our oil from Alaska(a sweet way to divert public monies into the coffers of oil companies which fund political campaigns).

But instead, we have Georgie W "I'm going to give your tax money to people who are scamming ERRRRRRRRRR 'developing' hydrogen fuel cell technology, even though it's been fairly well proven over the last 100 years that this 'exciting, new technology' that's been around for a century is a stupid fucking idea."

Or, we could always go the nuclear route, which is also known as "Plan B for giving Johnny Q's money to an oil company."

It seems like the oil business is an extremely profitable one these days. I'm just wondering why our elected officials want to keep both giving these wealthy corporations huge tax breaks, and why they want to keep giving them money out of the taxpayer's pockets to research ways to get more money out of our pockets.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:27 am

Mississippi Neck wrote:This thread is getting longer than the "fuck thread"...and with just as much depth.....

Yeah, and thanks for the offering.. Excuse me, but just when did you think that you had anything relevant worth saying, and just exactly when was it that you annointed yourself as the spokes person for said irrelevancy?

You, sir, can go get bent.

I wouldn't have even noticed hadn't it been for Angela dropping in with a relevant and excellent take.

Word to rozy and any other mods with an itchy trigger finger...that's why you don't cut threads off in midstream, regardless of the number of posts they've accumulated.

Rack Sis.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:54 am

The xenophobic racist hysteria drummed up--to the genuine shock of Cheney/Chimp--by the good folks at AIPAC has once again made the U.S. look like a joke. Wake the fuck up. Consider this totally unnecessary lurch toward McCarthyism :twisted: a PAYBACK for the current rude prosecution of two top AIPAC officials on SERIOUS spying charges.

Mississippi Neck · Post by **Mississippi Neck** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:01 am

War Wagon wrote:
Mississippi Neck wrote:This thread is getting longer than the "fuck thread"...and with just as much depth.....
Yeah, and thanks for the offering.. Excuse me, but just when did you think that you had anything relevant worth saying, and just exactly when was it that you annointed yourself as the spokes person for said irrelevancy?

You, sir, can go get bent.

I wouldn't have even noticed hadn't it been for Angela dropping in with a relevant and excellent take.

Word to rozy and any other mods with an itchy trigger finger...that's why you don't cut threads off in midstream, regardless of the number of posts they've accumulated.

Rack Sis.

You're a fucking walking softball of takes dude. Do you even remember what YOU yourself posted on Page 17 of this thread???

war wagon wrote: This topic should have gone all of about two pages

Bozo