Civil War in America?

Originally posted by marinakatomb
You've obviously been drinking. I can find no other reason why you would be so obnoxious otherwise. Im no genius, i know enouph to know i haven't got it all worked out and never will.

[b]You may be a "realist", but a realist wit ...[text shortened]... 've never met and take a good old look at yourself for a minute.

[/b] You might find thinking offensive. So should I cease that activity?

I think not. And no. I have not been drinking. Nice try.

The reason I am "obnoxious" is because I called you out for supporting Saddam and slavery and you realize you do.

That you are not a genious is the understatement of the millenium.

So. We "grow" democracies? Ok. You prove my point again. The fertilizer... the only fertilizer, is human blood. In every case where people have won free, there is that red, wonderful fertilizer that grew "democracy".

As opposed to your heros. The slave masters.

Originally posted by marinakatomb

I started this thread my man. Here we are talking about iraq when it's suppossed to have sunk into the sea. I've tried my best to have a civilised conversation with you. You don't like me cos im not a Neo Con. That is immensly sha ...[text shortened]... 've never met and take a good old look at yourself for a minute.

I am not "your man". Your man wears silly little nighties with frills.

I am talking about you in general. You did start this thread. And you can't support your posts. So? Should I wilt because of your lack of reason?

No. Rather I should push you into ever tighter corners. And at last see you strangle into rages of anger and fits of stupidity.

You are just about there.

As to a civilized conversation with me.... hell. You love Saddam. How can I have a conversation with your kind? You delight in every death suffered by those opposed to you. Those are people. Each worth a million of your kind.

You are not a neo. But you are an apologist for facism. And so yes, I do despise you. I don't like people who fight for evil.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Yes. I see "Ridiculessness" only in letting slavery persist. Your example of North Korea is perfect to win my point.

Now or later?

I propose now. When the crazy only has a couple of nukes.

Think of it. How many millions will ...[text shortened]... Saddam. Over the people of Iraq? Or do you now also support Bush?

Fair enough, SVW. I knew better than to comment.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
I am not "your man". Your man wears silly little nighties with frills.

I am talking about you in general. You did start this thread. And you can't support your posts. So? Should I wilt because of your lack of reason?

No. Rathe ...[text shortened]... so yes, I do despise you. I don't like people who fight for evil.

Good, you sound really pissed off, i take much pleasure from hearing you get worked up you arrogant confussed little man 🙂

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
We have established a "tradition" of law here. It took a long time to do, and it isn't easy. But we can rest assured that we will be able to act according to law.

...

Eventually, when the UN has stopped supporting dictators and terrorist nations as though they are legitimate governments, this concept will evolve into a true world government. We are just "pretending" at this point, but someday, maybe a world government can happen.

If rule of Law was all that was required to sustain a nation, you'd still be counting in roman numerals. Yet even if it was, what's so inherently law-abiding about americans? There aren't that many places with worse crime figures than the US, and plenty that have better. That's not even considering international law (because we wouldn't in this scenario). So tell me, why should anyone be "assured" that the US will "act according to law"?


As for the UN and dictatorships...what constitutes a "legitimate government" SVW?

MÅ¥HÅRM

Originally posted by Mayharm
If rule of Law was all that was required to sustain a nation, you'd still be counting in roman numerals. Yet even if it was, what's so inherently law-abiding about americans? There aren't that many places with worse crime figures than th ...[text shortened]... hat constitutes a "legitimate government" SVW?

MÅ¥HÅRM

I defined what I would consider to be a legitimate government. You didn't bother to read it. Did you?

I went to some lengths to define a dictator as well. You didn't even bother to read. Oh well.

The point is that nobody outside of the US does trust us. So piss on em. There is nothing that can change that. Is there? You will just have to get used to being "bullied" I guess. Snark. At least most of europe has plenty of that in your schools and slums. You should be good at it by now.

<edit> I'll repost my definition that I gave on page two...

What is your notion of what a "Nation" is? My definition would be something like:

"A system of at least two political parties who are willing to be bound by the same set of law. These parties, as many as there are amongth a people, do agree to share power through representative government; said governing body to be comprised of ordinary people elected from all/any regions and ethnic regions of the area comprising said nation."

That seems a minimum description.

What doesn't qualify is "A despotic maniac who kills anyone who is caught not bowing to his picture on the public square." See pre-war Iraq and North Korea as it is now

Originally posted by marinakatomb
Good, you sound really pissed off, i take much pleasure from hearing you get worked up you arrogant confussed little man 🙂

I like your smiley. It kind of contrasts with your words. It gives your arrogance and pomposity a certain style that can only help you win arguments. I noticed you didn't post any ideas here. Just keep on posting your hubris. It is smarter than you are anyway.

As to being confused and little... don't I wish. Confused I'll grant on occasion. Little -- I just dream of becoming.😕😉

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
I defined what I would consider to be a legitimate government. You didn't bother to read it. Did you?

I went to some lengths to define a dictator as well. You didn't even bother to read. Oh well.

The point is that nobody outside of the US does trust us. So piss on em. There is nothing that can change that. Is there? You will just have to get use ...[text shortened]... not bowing to his picture on the public square." See pre-war Iraq and North Korea as it is now

I'd bet good money I did bother to read your definition of a "Nation" the first time. Further, I'll bet that I didn't think any better of it then than I do now.

I dont read anything you write with any expectation of it being even slightly thought-out. I dont have any expectations that you pay enough attention to consider my choice of words. But I would have thought even a monkey like yourself would have started noticing when I use italics by now...

The answer that I think you would never bend enough to ask for is that all governments are self-legitimising. Even the "placed" government of a subjugated nation is legitimate so long as they can maintain it so. If you cant understand why that makes your "UN recognising illegitimate governments(paraphrased)" a joke, then I cant help you further.

But that was just an aside.


"The point is that nobody outside of the US does trust us. So piss on em. There is nothing that can change that. Is there? You will just have to get used to being "bullied" I guess. Snark. At least most of europe has plenty of that in your schools and slums. You should be good at it by now."

It's amazing, even the lamest post by some lameass poster in this thread managed to take on board the concept of no "rest of the world". Take it away from your perspective here and you have to wonder how much trusting or bullying goes on inside the US.

But you weren't really trying to make any sensible contribution with that remark were you?


The question as put forward by marinakatomb was not well thought out either, he presented it with partisanship already included, whereas the real question is non-partisan. How well does the US control itself? That is, after all, the point about there not being any other nations. Any patriot who thinks that's a question not worth discussing is doing their country a disservice.

MÅ¥HÅRM

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
I like your smiley. It kind of contrasts with your words. It gives your arrogance and pomposity a certain style that can only help you win arguments. I noticed you didn't post any ideas here. Just keep on posting your hubris. It is smarter than you are anyway.

As to being confused and little... don't I wish. Confused I'll grant on occasion. Little -- I just dream of becoming.😕😉

Hehe, you are the preverbial kettle once called black.

Originally posted by Mayharm
I'd bet good money I did bother to read your definition of a "Nation" the first time. Further, I'll bet that I didn't think any better of it then than I do now.

I dont read anything you write with any expectation of it being even slightly thought-out. I dont have any expectations that you pay enough attention to consider my choice of words. But I wou ...[text shortened]... o thinks that's a question not worth discussing is doing their country a disservice.

MÅ¥HÅRM

Thanks man, this chimp needed to be put in his place. It amazes me how genuinely thick some Americans are. It's a pity i only seem to hear from this moron whenever i post in the forums as i used to enjoy debating things before, now i just get sterio typed and then slated because im suppossed to be something im not.