Announcement

**Jaguar** · April 16, 2003, 04:12

Originally posted by Lord Merciless

Did I say anything outrageous?

Yes. The post I quoted. Putting words in someone elses mouth is outrageous.

**CyberGnu** · April 16, 2003, 04:13

Yes, because that comparison between Hitler and Rumsfeld was so dead on. I'd forgotten all about Adolf's reputation for wit...

Well, since you seem to be functionally illiterate, let me quote from the previous page:

16-04-2003 02:14 :

Not saying that Rumsfeld is Hitler, mind you, just that one need to pare these qualities with something else to have a good guy.

in repsonse to JW:
16-04-2003 02:49

Are you actually saying that I equate Rumsfeld with Hitler? What part of "Not saying that Rumsfeld is Hitler, mind you," was it that didn't register?

**Jaguar** · April 16, 2003, 04:15

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Well, since you seem to be functionally illiterate...

Bingo. There's the outrageous comment for this thread.

**Drake Tungsten** · April 16, 2003, 04:18

Bingo. There's the outrageous comment for this thread.

What does this mean? Me don't read so good...

**CyberGnu** · April 16, 2003, 04:18

Replace "critique far beyond the intellectual level of the critiqued" with "an outrageous statement most likely using the word 'reprehensible' which is my all-time favorite word" and you'd have it about right.

Funny, you answered my question "What is the outrageous part" with "None in this thread". I guess that sums it up...

I have to admit, though, my first response to you was a bit off the cuff. Drake did piss me off, and I didn't see your wink until now.

I still disagree with your assesment, though: My intent wasn't to be outrageous par se, I merely used the outrageous repacement of "rumsfeld" for "hitler" to make a point.

**CyberGnu** · April 16, 2003, 04:20

Bingo. There's the outrageous comment for this thread.

Two responses, and he hasn't read one of them? Doesn't seem outrageous to label someone functionally illiterate then...

**Lord Merciless** · April 16, 2003, 04:21

Originally posted by CyberGnu

In Iraq, yes. But how about the rest of the arab world?

They already hate us, but now they respect and fear us more. We are no longer the paper tiger as propagated in so many of their one-sided media.

In best case, the US handles the reconstruction perfectly, and you are right. But so little is required to mess it up - the minute the first american oil company sets foot in Iraq, the US has lost the war.

Iraq is so messed up today that just a little improvement will be greatly appreciated by the population. American oil companies can only provide more benefits by investing in Iraq. If not an American company, then who is going to get the oil flowing there? French BP or the Russian Gazprom?

And with the rest of the Arab world incensed, do you think al-Quida funding has gone up or down because of this? Several hundred arabs volunteered to defend Iraq against the US, what do you think they are doing now? Someone angry enough at the US to risk his life in the defense of Saddam, you think he will just go home and pick up his life where it started?

Exactly the opposite. Those volunteers have seen what happened in Iraq, and experienced how much they were hated by the Iraqis. That should give them a good lesson about their country's propaganda machines.
A few of suicide bombings by nutcases will still happen though, but with Al-Qaeda and Saddam both utter crushed, those crazies would have fewer means to pull another 911.

**Rogan Josh** · April 16, 2003, 04:23

I think most people dislike Rumsfeld because he comes over so completely dislikable at press conferances. Did you see the one yesterday for example? One of the reporters asked a reasonable question, but phrased it a little bit badly - Rumsfeld smiled an evil smile and answered the question completely literally, when it was perfectly obvious to everyone what the reporter meant. Then, when the reporter tried to correct the question, Rumsfeld said 'Only one question each' (or somesuch) and moved on. If he is willing to do that in public, what sort of politics does he play in private?

He somehow always comes over as an evil bastard, and that is before you consider his political views.

PS for CyberGnu: Careful, they ban on these boards for making anti-nazi references.

**Jaguar** · April 16, 2003, 04:24

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
PS for CyberGnu: Careful, they ban on these boards for making anti-nazi references.

You could always move to the CFC OT, that bastion of free speech.

**Drake Tungsten** · April 16, 2003, 04:26

Did you see the one yesterday for example? One of the reporters asked a reasonable question, but phrased it a little bit badly - Rumsfeld smiled an evil smile and answered the question completely literally, when it was perfectly obvious to everyone what the reporter meant. Then, when the reporter tried to correct the question, Rumsfeld said 'Only one question each' (or somesuch) and moved on.

I love it when Rumsfeld ****s with reporters. Those pretentious blowhards certainly deserve it...

**Lord Merciless** · April 16, 2003, 04:27

Reporters have been spoiled for too long, they deserved some slaps in their face.

**CyberGnu** · April 16, 2003, 04:35

They already hate us, but now they respect and fear us more. We are no longer the paper tiger as propagated in so many of their one-sided media.

Umm, how does that matter to a suicide bomber?

I never heard anyone actually believing the US was a paper tiger. Prior to Iraq, the main anger was due to the palestinian question, and the sheer impotense of the arab world to do anything about it.

Sure, when it looked like Iraq actually could put up a fight, then the paper tiger came out, but not for long...

Iraq is so messed up today that just a little improvement will be greatly appreciated by the population.

Economic improvement without political improvement isn't going to cut it, I think.

American oil companies can only provide more benefits by investing in Iraq. If not an American company, then who is going to get the oil flowing there? French BP or the Russian Gazprom?

I'm assuming you mean French Atofina (BP stands for British Petroluem)

Well, maybe we should give the whole thing to the only major oil company not politically implciated: Norsk Hydro...

Jokes aside, I think that for political purposes, it would be best to keep US companies out of Iraq, at least for the time being.

Look, pretty much the entire arab world already believe the US attacked Iraq to get its oil. Why confirm that belief?

Exactly the opposite. Those volunteers have seen what happened in Iraq, and experienced how much they were hated by the Iraqis. That should give them a good lesson about their country's propaganda machines.
A few of suicide bombings by nutcases will still happen though, but with Al-Qaeda and Saddam both utter crushed, those crazies would have fewer means to pull another 911.

I doubt it... Al-Quida isn't crushed, only weakend, and Saddam had nothing to do with terror, so that doesn't matter.

**CyberGnu** · April 16, 2003, 04:36

PS for CyberGnu: Careful, they ban on these boards for making anti-nazi references.

**CyberGnu** · April 16, 2003, 04:37

JW: CFC?

**Drake Tungsten** · April 16, 2003, 04:38

Hey, if you guys want to discuss the war in Iraq, there are plenty of threads to do it in. This thread is meant to be a place where people can revel in their love for our new hero, Donald Rumsfeld. Make with the love or get out...

Announcement

Rumsfeld is my hero too...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment