American bombs are still buried under German towns. And they're blowing up.

[revelarts]

Did you ever notice how Rev seems to not recall Saddam blowing up all those oil fields in Kuwait??
As if that wasn't some major pollution and lasting crap to deal with. And that pollution spread across the world for months and months.
Very, Very Selective outrage on his part methinks.....-Tyr

And even yet, as I posted, many major countries have such munitions in their arsenal. So apparently at said time, they as well felt it was worth it. But you only condemn your own country and ignore the fact that others have used it, or did use it in Iraq.

OK here we go.
You guys have even MADE UP my views.
"....But you only condemn your own country..."
"...Rev seems to not recall Saddam.."

Is that true Jim? do i only ...in other threads or in this one even "condemn" my own country.
Have i forgotten what Saddam has done Tyr?

and why is it about me anyway?

Tyr pointed out U.S munitions in Germany being a problem i point out similar in Iraq.
But don't you remember HITLER Tyr? Why do you only condemn your own country?


I just wish you guys would be honest and stop pretending that I support dictators or terrorist just because you don't like the fact that i point out REAL problems with the way the U.S. conducts business. And that we should CHANGE or FIX it.
EXACTLY LIKE YOU DO on other issues.

But hey if that's the Best you can do in reply , so be it.
It doesn't make problems or crimes or responsibilities i've mentioned go away but if it makes you feel better to attack the messenger.... well ok.

[jimnyc]

OK here we go.
You guys have even MADE UP my views.
"....But you only condemn your own country..."
"...Rev seems to not recall Saddam.."

Is that true Jim? do i only ...in other threads or in this one even "condemn" my own country.
Have i forgotten what Saddam has done Tyr?

and why is it about me anyway?

Tyr pointed out U.S munitions in Germany being a problem i point out similar in Iraq.
But don't you remember HITLER Tyr? Why do you only condemn your own country?


I just wish you guys would be honest and stop pretending that I support dictators or terrorist just because you don't like the fact that i point out REAL problems with the way the U.S. conducts business. And that we should CHANGE or FIX it.
EXACTLY LIKE YOU DO on other issues.

But hey if that's the Best you can do in reply , so be it.
It doesn't make problems or crimes or responsibilities i've mentioned go away but if it makes you feel better to attack the messenger.... well ok.

Anyone who posts here KNOWS your stance on the police, and the government. But are you as vocal, and do you start threads and such to condemn other countries, to condemn terrorists? I can only go by what you post, and then yes, base my views off of that. Do I think you actually support terrorism? Of course not. But you seem to spend a LOT more time on subjects condemning the US police and government, and a whole lot less about terrorists.

The point I was making was related to the topic, which I believe you then added Iraq onto the list - in order to condemn the USA for using such munitions - was that there was a long list of countries using such munitions, but apparently only one country was blamed that I saw.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

OK here we go.
You guys have even MADE UP my views.
"....But you only condemn your own country..."
"...Rev seems to not recall Saddam.."

Is that true Jim? do i only ...in other threads or in this one even "condemn" my own country.
Have i forgotten what Saddam has done Tyr?

and why is it about me anyway?

Tyr pointed out U.S munitions in Germany being a problem i point out similar in Iraq.
But don't you remember HITLER Tyr? Why do you only condemn your own country?


I just wish you guys would be honest and stop pretending that I support dictators or terrorist just because you don't like the fact that i point out REAL problems with the way the U.S. conducts business. And that we should CHANGE or FIX it.
EXACTLY LIKE YOU DO on other issues.

But hey if that's the Best you can do in reply , so be it.
It doesn't make problems or crimes or responsibilities i've mentioned go away but if it makes you feel better to attack the messenger.... well ok.

Tyr pointed out U.S munitions in Germany being a problem i point out similar in Iraq.
But don't you remember HITLER Tyr? Why do you [B][I]only condemn your own country?

I did not post the article to condemn anybody. I thought it interesting and an example of the high costs of wars. In your comment you seem to forget not just unexploded german bombs dropped but also entire cities that they destroyed(bombed into rubble and nations conquered etc.
I laid no guilt on anybody other than those that started both wars.
Yes, I've studied WW2 FOR OVER 4 DECADES NOW. I STILL READ UP ON WW2 EVERY CHANCE I GET WHEN FINDING NEW MATERIAL.

I RARELY EVER SPEAK ABOUT STUFF I HAVE NO GREAT KNOWLEDGE ON MY FRIEND.
Much to my many opponent 's deep chagrin.. --Tyr

[revelarts]

Anyone who posts here KNOWS your stance on the police, and the government. But are you as vocal, and do you start threads and such to condemn other countries, to condemn terrorists? I can only go by what you post, and then yes, base my views off of that. Do I think you actually support terrorism? Of course not. But you seem to spend a LOT more time on subjects condemning the US police and government, and a whole lot less about terrorists.

The point I was making was related to the topic, which I believe you then added Iraq onto the list - in order to condemn the USA for using such munitions - was that there was a long list of countries using such munitions, but apparently only one country was blamed that I saw.

Well For one thing I live in America. And we LEAD the war in Iraq.. and hold the greatest responsibility, we used the most arms.
Seems Tyr and Drummond are ready for the US to take all the credit for the "victory" without mentioning the "coalition of the willing" either Jim. you have a problem with that?
no.

As far as more comments on police than terrorism goes. ...since you brought it up.
well one simple answer is that IN the U.S. we don't suffer from terrorism on a monthly basis. We see police everyday.
OTHER countries suffer more from terrorism far more than we do.
In the US we're still more likely to be hit by lightening than to suffer from a terror attack.

But someone on this board will probably engage with a police officer in some way within the week.
And also, unlike terrorism, the issues with the police are often ignored, denied or covered up.

No one disputes whether or not terrorism is a issue. But some seem to think there's NO real problem with policing. It's a point i try to make clear by offering examples. As Tyr and Drummond do by constantly posting info about terrorism and or muzzies ... in other countries... weekly. And unlike them i don't claim that ALL or even MOST police are subhuman, animal, beast, crazy, hate filled, monsters that must be destroyed or mankind will be lost. I just want acknowledgement of a widespread problem and reform, with Good cops rising to the top of the food chain.

sorry if my choice of topics bugs you.

But many of my post on fighting terrorism have been po pooed, dismissed and obviously completely forgotten, so why should i comment on that anymore? You many here seem to ONLY want the banning and killing of all muslims and more war until muslims are practically extinct. period. end of story. And there are only so many walls i want to bang my head against on this board.


Anyone counting the number of anti-US gun bills threads, anti U.S.budgets, Anti-Obama threads, anti U.S economics,, Anti-Obamacare, anti-U.S. education, anti-U.S. unconstitutional acts etc? Anyone else here considered as "condemning" the U.S. government.

as Tyr mentioned "selective condemnation" maybe of a member here?

[jimnyc]

as Tyr mentioned "selective condemnation" maybe of a member here?

Not really, no. I'm talking about folks that don't seem to care much about terrorism while condemning so many other things instead within their own country. Who else is doing just that? I will be more than happy to equally condemning them for doing so as well. In fact, I had felt that Noir was doing similarly, and called him out on it several times.

It's selective based on a members own words. Sorry if that bugs you.

[Drummond]

Is what mentioned false?
no.

What you mention, Rev, is highly selective. Designed to achieve a purpose of your choosing and preference. Tell me why I should play this game according to your agenda ?

Yes, Iraq had a brutal dictator. But now they have Isis in much of the country as well as live and spent radioactive munitions scattered across it. It has a weak corrupt gov't with more ties to Iran than before, 100s of thousands of dead and displaced Iraqis, and a once solid infrastructure blown to crap.

And under Saddam, had he not been successfully dealt with, it would've had a dictator capable of anything, newly bolstered by a proven realisation that he was free to do ANYTHING without incurring the proper consequences. I'm sure that by now, nobody at all would, or could, doubt the existence of an Iraqi WMD arsenal being under his control, to use to kill as the whim took him.

But he WAS successfully dealt with. Much of what followed was good .. including Iraq knowing democracy. BUT, along came a Leftie called Obama, and put an almighty spanner in the works. He made sure NOT ONLY that American forces were withdrawn, but that the arrangements to do so were publicised YEARS in advance.

So, surprise surprise. We have the emergence of ISIS. Shall I wait for your willingness to blame OBAMA for that ?

I somehow think I'll be waiting a very long time for that. Eh, Rev ?

But OK you still might think the Iraqi people are better off because we used radioactive munitions that we DID NOT have to use to get the "victory" we see today.
well we disagree.

Ah, but aren't you against EVERYTHING to do with the 2003 Iraq War ? Be honest. All you're really doing is using an excuse to shore up your more general hatred of that war.

BTW I do celebrate the WWII victory.

Do you really ? Well done !

but i don't see you berating Tyr for bringing up a negative consequence of that war.

And your reason for trying this line - considering your own claimed 'celebration' of that war - is, what, exactly ?

Perhaps 'celebrate' was putting it too strongly ? Are you sure you even used the right word ?

Drummond It doesn't diminish or smear a REAL victory to admit that there are negatives to be aware of and deal with.

But on the other hand ... why would you SEEK TO ?

A victory could be much better, overall, than any so-called 'negative' thinking about it. Imagine any victory speech given by a victorious politician, or general, following a war. Do such speeches CELEBRATE, or BERATE ?

When the Falklands conflict ended, Margaret Thatcher's message was 'REJOICE'. She didn't take any defeatist line. Why would she ? Why would anyone in that position ?

And it doesn't show the strength of our nation if we try to justified ALL our actions. we should admit and do better next time even if we can't "fix" the problems we've caused. thats what STRONG people and countries do it seems to me.

You're really keen on your displays of negativity, aren't you ? And here's something for you to chew on ... any such display HAS PROPAGANDA VALUE TO THE ENEMY, EVEN A DEFEATED ENEMY.

Consider this. A defeated force, IF given ammunition to say that its enemy was disreputable in any way, might be a defeated force that can go on to recruit again, or, to inspire others to recommence the fight. Now .. is this a GOOD, or a BAD thing .. eh, Rev ?

Uh yes, Bush started the war with Iraq.

LEFTIE CRAP. Truth be told, SADDAM started it, by defying UN Resolution after UN Resolution, notably 1441. He could've played ball, but chose the alternative instead. The 2003 invasion was a REaction to defiance from Saddam lasting years. It was ultimately inevitable.

Saddam never attacked us or our allies. Bush had to make up a NEW way for the U.S. to get into war , it's now called "the BUSH Doctrine" a so called pre emptive war. What used to be called invading another country.

What alliances did he have ? What dodgy deals was he doing ? Maybe no direct attacks, no. But he was friendly with those who wouldn't have thought twice about it. Al Qaeda, for example .. perhaps you've forgotten his SHELTERING of a key Al Q operative in the region, called Zarqawi ??

Add this to concerns about his WMD stocks. No .. Saddam's deposing was absolutely necessary. Besides, do you imagine that his actions in that region of the world, destabilising actions, were GOOD for world security .. something that the US cannot help but think of as a legitimate concern ??

[revelarts]

What you mention, Rev, is highly selective.

thread title = "American bombs are still buried under German towns. And they're blowing up."
my reply = "Similar situation in Iraq. especially near the iranian boarders. Plus in Iraq we used depleted uranium shells..."

Seems my comment is exactly parallel.

Designed to achieve a purpose of your choosing and preference. Tell me why I should play this game according to your agenda ?

the fact that it seems to provoke you into defense and justifications and into accusing me of games YET you avoid addressing the serious reality that there are in fact many today that are still suffering from our use of DU is telling.
Your reaction to a few lines of fact indicates me that you likely do see some problem with the use of DU yourself, especially when compared to our bombing in WW2

And under Saddam, had he not been successfully dealt with, it would've had a dictator capable of anything, newly bolstered by a proven realisation that he was free to do ANYTHING without incurring the proper consequences. I'm sure that by now, nobody at all would, or could, doubt the existence of an Iraqi WMD arsenal being under his control, to use to kill as the whim took him.
But he WAS successfully dealt with. Much of what followed was good .. including Iraq knowing democracy. BUT, along came a Leftie called Obama, and put an almighty spanner in the works. He made sure NOT ONLY that American forces were withdrawn, but that the arrangements to do so were publicised YEARS in advance.
So, surprise surprise. We have the emergence of ISIS. Shall I wait for your willingness to blame OBAMA for that ?
I somehow think I'll be waiting a very long time for that. Eh, Rev ?
Ah, but aren't you against EVERYTHING to do with the 2003 Iraq War ? Be honest. All you're really doing is using an excuse to shore up your more general hatred of that war.

hmm yeah, we disagree.
Concerning Obama he's got to own his part in Isis's growth But it was Brenen under Bush who did more to CREATE it when he fired Saddam's bathist army and left them without jobs or pensions. THEY became ISIS in Iraq. the Former Iraqi Army. That under Saddam had only ever attack Iran and Kuwait before our "victory".

Do you really ? Well done !
And your reason for trying this line - considering your own claimed 'celebration' of that war - is, what, exactly ?
Perhaps 'celebrate' was putting it too strongly ? Are you sure you even used the right word ?

now you question my sincerity.
well I guess i can question yours too. If we're just making things up.
I guess you are little sorry Hilter didn't have some partial victory right Drummond?

But on the other hand ... why would you SEEK TO ?
A victory could be much better, overall, than any so-called 'negative' thinking about it. Imagine any victory speech given by a victorious politician, or general, following a war. Do such speeches CELEBRATE, or BERATE ?
When the Falklands conflict ended, Margaret Thatcher's message was 'REJOICE'. She didn't take any defeatist line. Why would she ? Why would anyone in that position ?
You're really keen on your displays of negativity, aren't you ? And here's something for you to chew on ... any such display HAS PROPAGANDA VALUE TO THE ENEMY, EVEN A DEFEATED ENEMY.
Consider this. A defeated force, IF given ammunition to say that its enemy was disreputable in any way, might be a defeated force that can go on to recruit again, or, to inspire others to recommence the fight. Now .. is this a GOOD, or a BAD thing .. eh, Rev ?

I'm going to be blunt here.
ignorant, stupid or brainwashed people will believe anything even balled faced lies. ANY lying propaganda will work.
But most reasonable people of good will if given enough info will not fall for BS that trys to paint honest confessions of mistakes or wrong doing ..with corrective measures.. as weakness or a cause to fight. If the wrong is confessed and addressed what's to fight Drummond.

And by your reality, If muslims are subhumans koran bent on our destruction anyway it doesn't matter what we say on any subject good or bad. They'll still come after us. Unless you think some muslims DO care what we REALLY DO and REaLLY Say. But that'd be LEFTIE CRAP.!!!

LEFTIE CRAP. Truth be told, SADDAM started it, by defying UN Resolution after UN Resolution, notably 1441. He could've played ball, but chose the alternative instead. The 2003 invasion was a REaction to defiance from Saddam lasting years. It was ultimately inevitable.
What alliances did he have ? What dodgy deals was he doing ? Maybe no direct attacks, no. But he was friendly with those who wouldn't have thought twice about it. Al Qaeda, for example .. perhaps you've forgotten his SHELTERING of a key Al Q operative in the region, called Zarqawi ??
Add this to concerns about his WMD stocks. No .. Saddam's deposing was absolutely necessary. Besides, do you imagine that his actions in that region of the world, destabilising actions, were GOOD for world security .. something that the US cannot help but think of as a legitimate concern ??

I think you haven't taken into account the whole of the evidence.
so we disagree.

[hjmick]

Okeedokee... Now that you guys have turned this into a "You're a dick... No you're a dick... My penis is bigger than yours pissing match...


There is a very good piece in the current issue of Smithsonian magazine about unexploded ordinance in Germany. It's the one that features "The Search Fro Jesus" on the cover.

Go ahead, buy a copy, read it. Very good.


Oh nevermind...


There Are Still Thousands of Tons of Unexploded Bombs in Germany, Left Over From World War II


It even has pictures...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Okeedokee... Now that you guys have turned this into a "You're a dick... No you're a dick... My penis is bigger than yours pissing match...


There is a very good piece in the current issue of Smithsonian magazine about unexploded ordinance in Germany. It's the one that features "The Search Fro Jesus" on the cover.

Go ahead, buy a copy, read it. Very good.


Oh nevermind...


There Are Still Thousands of Tons of Unexploded Bombs in Germany, Left Over From World War II


It even has pictures...

Does it ask why Germany has not spent the money to seek out and remove that ordinance?
Or why its more important for them to take in muslims spending billions on them instead?

Perhaps Rev could send them a letter asking why the money is there for the muslims but no money seems available for removing unexploded ordinance and keeping their own citizens safe..-Tyr

Okeedokee... Now that you guys have turned this into a "You're a dick... No you're a dick... My penis is bigger than yours pissing match...

By the way, I did no penis measuring myself. I've known exactly its size for a long, long time and tried as I may-I haven't gained another bleeping extra inch after its already in full functioning mode.
However, my wife seems to think I am just fine as is.
And thats all that matters to me on that front..... -Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

American bombs are still buried under German towns. And they're blowing up.


Gee, maybe the Germans shouldn't have started a war. Looks like they left quite a legacy for their descendants.

[Little-Acorn]

thread title = "American bombs are still buried under German towns. And they're blowing up."
my reply = "Similar situation in Iraq. especially near the iranian boarders."Plus in Iraq we used depleted uranium shells."

And American philosophy remained the same for both conflicts: "We fight them over there so we won't have to fight them here."

Again, if they don't like the result, maybe those various people should think twice before dragging us into a war. Look what their actions resulted in.

[Drummond]

American bombs are still buried under German towns. And they're blowing up.


Gee, maybe the Germans shouldn't have started a war. Looks like they left quite a legacy for their descendants.

Excellent point that Rev has entirely overlooked. Maybe those who start wars, hold responsibility for the consequences of them ??

Ditto with Saddam. He could've avoided was by behaving responsibly in the international community .. not starting wars in his own region, wars proving him to be a maverick belligerent. Or by not deploying a WMD against the Kurds ?? Or, shock horror, by FULLY COOPERATING with the UN, and removing any need for a war against his regime ?

Revelarts, seemingly, has no time or inclination to include any of this in his thinking. Better to foist blame game stuff on AMERICAN forces, and GW Bush, instead .....

[Drummond]

thread title = "American bombs are still buried under German towns. And they're blowing up."
my reply = "Similar situation in Iraq. especially near the iranian boarders. Plus in Iraq we used depleted uranium shells..."

Seems my comment is exactly parallel.

I'll agree with that, I think. Parallel .. accepted.

Parallel in that, in each case, A BELLIGERENT FORCE, A MAVERICK DICTATORSHIP, WAS BEING DEFEATED. PARALLEL IN THAT, IN EACH CASE, WORLD SECURITY BENEFITTED FROM THOSE DEFEATS.

Ah, but in your case, Rev, you still want to blame GW Bush for daring to deal with the long-standing WMD issue. Perhaps Churchill was 'to blame' for dealing (amongst others) with the long-standing Hitler issue ?

You continue berating on the issue of uranium shells ... propaganda useful to an enemy ? Eh ? BUT, what if all our fears about Saddam's WMD stocks had been exactly correct, and GW Bush had not acted at all ? What about the effects of THEIR deployments, had there ever been any ? I'm guessing that, today, you'd be firing another 'blame game' salvo at Bush for failing to act ???

Be 'selective' in your reply, Revelarts .....

the fact that it seems to provoke you into defense and justifications and into accusing me of games YET you avoid addressing the serious reality that there are in fact many today that are still suffering from our use of DU is telling.

What do you expect me to do about it ? Arrange for a wholesale excavation of Iraq to remove remaining ones ?

Saddam arranged a war - so he got one. Blame the instigator, not the power choosing to react to an intolerable position !

Your reaction to a few lines of fact indicates me that you likely do see some problem with the use of DU yourself, especially when compared to our bombing in WW2

Good God. You're REALLY pushing your 'blame' tactics to the hilt, aren't you ? Revelarts, war is hell ... and the one Saddam started can certainly qualify.

Concerning Obama he's got to own his part in Isis's growth But it was Brenen under Bush who did more to CREATE it when he fired Saddam's bathist army and left them without jobs or pensions. THEY became ISIS in Iraq. the Former Iraqi Army. That under Saddam had only ever attack Iran and Kuwait before our "victory".

Sorry, what ? ISIS consists of disgruntled unemployed people, and pensioners ??? That's a new one ...

I hope that if we ever do get ground troops in to mop up the post-bombed ISIS scum, they'll look out for the telltale sign of fast-moving zimmerframes ..

... and I 'really love' this bit ...

That under Saddam had only ever attack Iran and Kuwait before our "victory"

... ONLY ?? Well, that's all right, then !! Now, how selective with your blame game stuff are you being HERE ???? Good God ....

OK, summarising. Obama's share of responsibility for ISIS should be minimised. Bush's 'culpability' for ISIS (by daring to overthrow a tyrannical maniac who'd ONLY attacked two other counties, and was feared to have a WMD arsenal !!) is 'far more total', because, erm' he did NOT arrange a troop withdrawal, this allowing ISIS to emerge ???

Care to look at that one again, Revelarts ? Or perhaps your selectivity will get in the way ??

now you question my sincerity.

I'm sure you're completely sincere in your many attacks on GW Bush, and your 'blame game' tactics (as sincere as any Leftie would be in following his bog-standard pro-Leftie agenda !). I'm sure you're very sincere in wanting to defend Obama from blame for his obvious irresponsibility (TREASONOUS irresponsibility, at that !).

I guess you are little sorry Hilter didn't have some partial victory right Drummond?

That would be the 'Mr Hilter' of Monty Python fame, Revelarts ? Do tell ...



Feel free to try and justify your accusation, Revelarts. But of course, you'll do a classic FJ, and duck that one ...

I'm going to be blunt here.

I say, steady on there, Revelarts ...

ignorant, stupid or brainwashed people will believe anything even balled faced lies. ANY lying propaganda will work.

... well, if you say so ! You seem to have some experience of such things ? What other source of personal knowledge do you have to draw on, for that one ??

But most reasonable people of good will if given enough info will not fall for BS that trys to paint honest confessions of mistakes or wrong doing ..with corrective measures.. as weakness or a cause to fight. If the wrong is confessed and addressed what's to fight Drummond.

More of your selectivity at work ? All this tries to divert away from my earlier point, which as we both know, was fully valid. You do NOT work to give your enemy a gift of propaganda they can then work to use against you !!

.. or .. DO you ? H'mmm ? Please advise !!

And by your reality, If muslims are subhumans koran bent on our destruction anyway it doesn't matter what we say on any subject good or bad. They'll still come after us. Unless you think some muslims DO care what we REALLY DO and REaLLY Say. But that'd be LEFTIE CRAP.!!!

You make a good point here, Revelarts. It's always good to recognise the true nature of your enemy, then be prepared to do what you MUST do, against that enemy, to defeat it. We did that with Saddam. We - thanks in no small part to LEFTIE PC SELLOUT TYPES - are spectacularly FAILING to grasp the complete nature of the Islamic enemy.

High time that changed. Ah, but Revelarts, I'm sure you'd not agree with that one .. would you ?

Cue a timely attack on GW Bush by way of desperate diversion, Rev .. ?

I think you haven't taken into account the whole of the evidence.
so we disagree.

You know, I bet the humour and irony of that remark escapes you .. eh ?