Downfall (2005)

[Quorthon]

42ndstreetfreak said:

America (and most certainly Bush and his lot) had bad points and dubious policies. But lets stop all this America bashing bullshit.


America was hideously attacked on 9/11. It (as we do now in the UK after being attacked) have every right to fight back and seek justice. End of.
Islam has been attacking ther West for centuries, and commiting mass murder and atrocities on it's fellow Muslims for as long. It goes BOTH ways. All this 'The West is evi' bullshit is just that...BULLSHIT.

And there is NOT ONE Islamic State you, me or in fact anyone on here would like to live in instead of the UK or America.
Remeber that.

Every single president America has ever had held dubious policies and had bad points--some far worse than what Bush has done. But Bush is just being treated far worse than anyone prior to him. I don't think he's anywhere near being the best President we've ever had, but Christ, he doesn't deserve some of the shit being thrown at him. I found out that he actually meets with as many families of fallen soldiers as he can--does it privately, and generally without pictures being taken. He always appears somber and sincere, and allows even the angriest to simply vent at him and, reportedly, walks away mournful and apologetic. (Time Magazine article)

At any rate: I think that if an attacked nation doesn't fight back against terrorists, they don't just look weak, they have proven that if you want the country to do your bidding, all you need to do is organize a small attack on them--and they'll fold. Example: Spain.

The last part of 42nd's post reminded me of what Tim Robbins said about 9/11 (and for as much as I like the guy as an actor, he needs to keep his mouth shut on political events--he's no political commentator): He pondered aloud why Islamic Extremists would attack New York City when it's the most culturally diverse city in the world. Part of the problem with this is that Islamic Extremists come from a world with NO cultural diversity. True story.

[Quorthon]

mabuse said:

You don't have to wear a swastika to be a Nazi--the fruit don't fall far from the tree. Also: I've hated Bush since before he President, when it wasn't "popular."
LBJ passed lots of Civil Rights bills, but he still used the word "nigger" in-private, and waged an racist-war. He just had-no-other-choice but to pass the bills. Kerry and Bush were both members (actually still are), and both still support the war in Iraq. Both are very-rich, and I suspect both are taking-orders from those who are unimaginably-rich.
Incidentally, I'm German on my mother's side, so that one doesn't float here, either. The fact is he lied in a treasonous-manner, and you are one of the people who gets-fooled all-of-the-time.
Sorry, Somalia was a crap-shoot compared to the ongoing disaster that is Iraq. Of-course, none of this will convince you, but I will tell you that you are pretty ignorant on geopolitics. I hate both political-parties, and consider myself somewhat Socialist, with anarchist-tendencies. You make me sad and ashamed I am American (sorry Bart, et. al.). America seems to be the only major threat to the civilized world right-now. Funny, your information has all been disproven for long-time now. Being "centrist" in America is to be far-right compared to the rest-of-the-world. America is barbaric, and we should all be ashamed of this Administration. Never-mind, I shoulda used smaller-words...

First, I think it should be stated that Somolia led to 9/11--Bin Laden openly stated that Clinton's pull-out proved to him that America was spineless and weak. Did pulling out of there stop terrorists? Nope. So why does Spain (who was bombed and then pulled out of Iraq) believe that they'll be safe if they just run away and give in? Simply put, if we don't fight them, they bomb us and they fight us anyway. If we fight them, they might still bomb us, but at least we're getting rid of many of the trouble-makers--at least we're trying to stop the horror.

Socialist, huh? That's all well and good, but it means you're being ignorant of many facts and choosing to see things from only one perspective. The same is true of Islamic Extremists--who, one could say, are staunch Conservatives based on their belief system. I've personally found that anarchy accomplishes nothing and as a belief system with no set structure (because it's anarchy after all), it has a very short life-span. That's your choice to go that route, but, in a few years time (maybe even less) you may be second-guessing that choice. Luckily for you, it's only Anarchist-tendencies, so the transition won't be too rough.

You find me one person who hasn't at one time uttered a racist term--whether or not they are or aren't racist--and I'll show you Mickey Mouse.

I'm not one of the denizens of the "always fooled." Didn't I say that I don't think Bush is a great President? And I don't believe everything the government says, but I'm not some lunatic that thinks absolutely everything is a lie or part of a much larger conspiracy. Which begs the question: Just who are the super-rich guys that control Bush and Kerry? You'd think with "all that money" they'd be able to make these two seem less moronic. Are you saying that Kerry and Bush were both members of the Nazi party... or what was that?

Once again, sorry for the lengthy rant. But you seemed very angry at, apparently, the idea that I disagree with you.

[mabuse]

Funny, this started with a review of film about Hitler's last-days! ;D But, it's all about your misreadings of history.



I do not believe there has ever been a decent President in the United States, not ever. Also, I stated clearly that I am basically Socialist (not the Central European or Russian kind, more Keynesian) with anarchistic-tendencies. My feelings towards arachist-thought are anarcho-syndicalits: federated workplaces controlled by workers and the public. Actually, law-and-order would be even more-important, as would personal-responsibility which is rare these-days. I believe--silly me--that the State should exist to serve people, not the reverse.

For-the-records: Bush has never attended even one funeral of a fallen-soldier. Spain was attacked because the government (undemocratically) followed us into Iraq, and they were punished for it. Not right, but there-it-is.
The irony is: the majority of these "Muslim nations" were created as artificial-entities by the Western powers, particularly in the case of Afghanistan. Interesting to note that we will be leaving an Islamist-theocracy behind in Iraq, as-well. America and the Home Office want client-states, and this is well-documented to those who wish to know. It isn't even controversial.
It isn't necessary for me to look at things from a conservative point-of-view when we are fed it every day in our corporate-owned media. The media doesn't so much lie as it distorts from a big-business perspective, and it omits quite-a-bit. It's easy to read-between-the-lines, but I do not think you have the intellect. I'm only disturbed--not angry--that you cannot back-up anything with factual-statements, and I do believe you are easily-swayed by your emotionalism.
Al-Qaida was formed--in-part--from our useage of Muslim-extremists in the Balkans (prove me wrong), as well as the fact that we constructed military-bases in the Kingdom (not democracy) of Saudi Arabia--home to the Holy city of Mecca. Kerry and Bush appear moronic because they have to make excuses for the irrational-demands of concentrated-power.
Their bosses are the major-shareholders of most-all existing corporations, and other holdings, including Banking. Some names will be familiar: the Hunts, the Astors, the Rockefellers, and-on-and-on. This is public-knowledge, check-it-out. Shareholder's meetings are not democratic, but based on who owns the most-shares.
America has committed numerous atrocites--often with help from proxy-armies we back--since the end of WWII. 9/11 was inarguably wrong and horrible, and I even have a classmate who was murdered in the World Trade Center--don't go there, jingos. Only the ignorant were surprised as to why it happened, we have inflicted much-worse on other nations, Vietnam only being one-of-many.
Retaliation doesn't help-much either, unless it's to stop an immenent-threat, otherwise you simply feed-into what the terrorists want: attention, and a worthy-adversary to rally-against. Every innocent we "accidentally" kill creates dozens more terrorists, but that is obvious. There I go-again, such big words...for someone who doesn't like Bush much, you make a lot of excuses for him and the real anarchists in the State Department and Downing Street. I've spoken my peace on all this.

[42ndstreetfreak]

[ZapRowsdower]

As a centrist (AKA political moderate), I find this debate to be very interesting.

I also find it intriguing that it all began in a thread intended to review the movie Downfall.

But I've seen a thread on Fark.com about a bear... and that ALSO turned into a political debate. So I've seen stranger transitions.

[mabuse]

[Quorthon]

mabuse said:

Wow. Gee. Look at all the big intellectual words.

Look, just because I consider myself Centrist doesn't instantly translate to "der I hate Bush, me should make fun of him" or vice versa. It means that I'm looking objectivly at him. Mediocre President? Yup. Racist that wants to let everyone in New Orleans curl up and die? I don't think so. (In all reality, trying to get in and save peolple who were too stubborn to leave in the first place is a difficult and time-consuming process, and like I said, was the Governor's responsibility initially)

You claim that I'm ruled by emotions--but personally, I'm ruled by common sense with a splash of emotion to keep my humanity in check--that's what I personally believe makes me "Centrist." I don't buy everything that I hear in the media and from various famous complainers (Kanye West, for instance) about the President. If I did, I'd be calling him a racist and proclaiming that he deliberately stalled in saving a bunch of people in a catastrophe. I'd be too ignorant to realize that the Governor, again, should've been doing something first--if in fact something could've been done so soon--to save those people. In reality, of course, one needs to wait for the storm to finish, then assess damage and what help needs to be done, and call in the appropriate people and organizations--and all this stuff takes time.

Since when is Anarchy ruled by, well, rules?? That would make it an oxymoron.

It really sounds like you think it's fine-n-dandy for terrorists (especially Islamic) to go around killing people, but wrong for America or Civilized nations to do it. Judging by your ranting, you're from America--but you write in a manner profoundly difficult to understand which occasionally leads me to believe that you don't have a full grasp of English, and perhaps don't speak it, and might not be American.

It's bizarre, and kind of sad, that you'd even bring up Vietnam. If you're so intelligent (because you use "big words"), then you'd realize that was a different place and time. That was still the old Capitalism vs Communism routine. It was believed at the time that for every nation Communism overtook, Capitalism loses ground. Communism was, in a manner of speaking, devouring nations in the Asiatic continent. The war, in hindsight, was needless as Vietnam eventually fell to the Reds, but initially, there was a point (of sorts) to the carnage. This is a different time and a different war. And as we've seen, it's not political differences that are being fought. Not at all. We're fighting people who want everyone not like themselves to be dead. You allow Al Qiada (or Qaeda or whatever) get it's grubby hands on a nuke or chemical agent, and you'll see a vision of needless carnage that no "Western" nation would ever dare to cause.

I never said that Bush attended funerals for fallen soldiers--that would be incredibly time consuming. Logistically impossible. I said he's met with families of fallen soldiers in group settings. Big difference. You see, I pointed out something (for lack of a better word) good he did and you immediately turned it around and seem to think that he should be attending all their funerals. You claim that I blindly listen to media and whatever I'm told and that, apparently, I'm the biggest Bush ass-kisser in the land. Do you even realize that that's an exact description of yourself? Except you refuse to see any good the man has done--you only wish him to be demonized as much as possible. I didn't like Clinton, but I'll admit that there's some positive things he's done. (His apparent initiative to make the food in schools healthier is by and large a good thing, though granted, this is after his time in office--still a good thing to do.)

So you're also against retaliation? So if I was talking to you face to face and suddenly I punched you in the face; you wouldn't hit me back? What if I kept doing it? Would you retaliate? And when you walk away, what if I ran up behind you and punched you in the back of the head? Retaliate then? Well guess what? This is a scaled-down-to-two-people version of fighting with terrorists, a metaphor if you will. You, walking away and doing nothing to stop me is Spain. Me, following you around to punch you in the back of the head is Al Qaida. We're not "giving these people attention." They make it for themselves. They bomb embassies or subways and then proudly proclaim that they killed all those innocents. If we don't try to stop them, then we're allowing them to continue. You think they'll stop because you turn your back? All they know now is that if they want a country to give them more power, they can go to Spain and blow up some citizens--and Spain will do anything they ask. If you don't try to stop them, they just get worse, and then you're guilty of allowing your own good people die for nothing.

If the real Anarchists are the US State Department, and you're an "anarchist," then what's your problem with them? Sounds like a match made in heaven, to me.

Maybe, since you hate America and other "Western" civilizations so much, why don't you go live in an Islamic state and join some lunatic fundamentalists, like 42nd said? After you've done that, you come back and tell me just how terrible it is in America or the UK or whatever other Western nation you wish. See how well Socialism flies with them.

And there's really no reason to be insulting or call someone an "ass." You're free to disagree with people (except in the Islamic terrorists groups you love so much--where there is no freedom). If I, who doesn't understand all you're "big words" can grasp that notion, then why can't you?

And how many different versions of "Socialism" are there anyway? Isn't all still just Communism?

[ZapRowsdower]

And Quorthon, I gotta say I agree with you.

I read somewhere, "don't sink the ship just because you don't like the captain."

[Quorthon]

iamthesmitty said:

And Quorthon, I gotta say I agree with you.

I read somewhere, "don't sink the ship just because you don't like the captain."

That's a good line. One of these days I need to actually write down all the good quotes and phrases I hear--it's getting too hard to remember them all! Like Einstein said, "never remember what you can write down."

[Bartwald]

Ouch! This thread got kinda slippery lately, I'm angry now that I haven't noticed it earlier, cause it would have been already locked and safe. Personal opinion is personal opinion, but why spit out all the insults, guys??!

[Quorthon]

admin said:

Ouch! This thread got kinda slippery lately, I'm angry now that I haven't noticed it earlier, cause it would have been already locked and safe. Personal opinion is personal opinion, but why spit out all the insults, guys??!

Now you can see why I was gettin' antsy about the absence of my Mod powers for that time! Luckily, the arguing lost a lot of steam...

[Bartwald]

I can see, yeah. And sorry for that. Now all our mods have their full powers again.