Rosie calls troops terrorists

[jackass]

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=8555E0A1-511E-43AA-A950-4B42219BA941&t=c2160&f=06/64&p=hotvideo_celebrity&fg=&GT1=9951

She is unreal! She has NO facts and just starts saying anything she wants.

[nevadamedic]

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=8555E0A1-511E-43AA-A950-4B42219BA941&t=c2160&f=06/64&p=hotvideo_celebrity&fg=&GT1=9951

She is unreal! She has NO facts and just starts saying anything she wants.

She is starting to sound like Senator Reid.

[Gaffer]

She's where ron paul gets his material.

[Mr. P]

Ain't she a MORON!

ABC is letting her do it too..Geeeezzzzzzzzz.

[nevadamedic]

Ain't she a MORON!

ABC is letting her do it too..Geeeezzzzzzzzz.

She doesn't know when to quit. She picked a fight with Trump and got her ass handed to her, she talked shit about the President and got called out on it and now this fat bitch wants to talk about the people protecting her freedom of being a dyke and adoping kids? She is like Mrs. Piggy on a mixture of crack and steroids.

[Yurt]

Didn't trump predict she would hang herself with that mouth of hers...

[nevadamedic]

Didn't trump predict she would hang herself with that mouth of hers...

Yea, but unfortunatly the networks are enabling her. She should have been pulled off the air. I think her wife must have put the dildo a little to far up her ass this time.

[glockmail]

Didn't trump predict she would hang herself with that mouth of hers... Shes a fat ugly bitch. I want her to keep talking though, as she demonstrates the state of liberalism in America right now. SHE SPEAKS FOR ALL LIBERALS! :laugh2:

[Yurt]

Yea, but unfortunatly the networks are enabling her. She should have been pulled off the air. I think her wife must have put the dildo a little to far up her ass this time.

How do you know so much about lithium?

[glockmail]

How do you know so much about lithium?:clap:












(How's it feel, navadamedic?)

:coffee:

[Joan]

I did hear that her contract on the View has not been renewed, and I for one would like nothing better than to see her, Barbra Streisand, and Alec Baldwin leave the country as they promised if Bush got elected!!

[Abbey Marie]

I did hear that her contract on the View has not been renewed, and I for one would like nothing better than to see her, Barbra Streisand, and Alec Baldwin leave the country as they promised if Bush got elected!!

Yes! And all three in a little leaky inner tube on it's way to their beloved island of Cuba. Ole'!

[5stringJeff]

That makes me want to reach through my monitor and beat the living daylights out of her. :mad:

[Abbey Marie]

Rosie doesn't say anything that umpteen other libs say daily. She just says it on TV.

[nevadamedic]

How do you know so much about lithium?

Being if worked in and around hospitals, I know 90% of the medications out there.

[nevadamedic]

:clap:












(How's it feel, navadamedic?)


:coffee:

:pee:

[Pale Rider]

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=8555E0A1-511E-43AA-A950-4B42219BA941&t=c2160&f=06/64&p=hotvideo_celebrity&fg=&GT1=9951

She is unreal! She has NO facts and just starts saying anything she wants.

What I think of this fatass piece of shit can't be put in words, especially on here. Being a disabled veteran, I'd like to... well... I can't say it.

[nevadamedic]

What I think of this fatass piece of shit can't be put in words, especially on here. Being a disabled veteran, I'd like to... well... I can't say it.

Pale, why dont we just sick you on her? :laugh2:

[nevadamedic]

The rumor is she is getting her own show. Ive tried to find something credible here on the net and cant find anything. I have found these rumor sites though.

http://www.damnimcute.com/the-juicy/rosie-getting-her-own-spin-off/

http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/01/18/rosie-set-to-leave-the-view-for-her-own-show/

http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/rosie.htm funny comic posted here.

[Pale Rider]

Pale, why dont we just sick you on her? :laugh2:

Bring it... and nobody will ever have to listen to her again... :dev2: :death:

[Fountainhead]

What I think of this fatass piece of shit can't be put in words, especially on here. Being a disabled veteran, I'd like to... well... I can't say it.

Pale, dude, I feel your pain.

And I wouldn't mind knockin Rosie's dick in the dirt. (Yea, she's got one ... surgically attached at the request of her lipstick partner ... I read it in Modern Lesbian)

But seriously. Let's consider Rosie from a strategic standpoint.

I am convinced that everytime some EXTREMIST liberal nut-case like Rosie O-Dumbell spouts this sort of garbage ... 5 Democrats turn Republican.

Seriously.

She does more HARM for tax & spend Democrat registration than 100 Ronald Reagans.

Thousands of "Undecideds" make-up their minds everytime Rosie opens her giant gaping yapper.

Remember how Michael Moore got GW Bush elected TWICE ?

Yea, it's kinda like that

[nevadamedic]

Bring it... and nobody will ever have to listen to her again... :dev2: :death:

How do you really feel about her? :laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

How do you really feel about her? :laugh2:

Like I said pard... I can't say. :)

[Pale Rider]

Pale, dude, I feel your pain.

And I wouldn't mind knockin Rosie's dick in the dirt. (Yea, she's got one ... surgically attached at the request of her lipstick partner ... I read it in Modern Lesbian)

But seriously. Let's consider Rosie from a strategic standpoint.

I am convinced that everytime some EXTREMIST liberal nut-case like Rosie O-Dumbell spouts this sort of garbage ... 5 Democrats turn Republican.

Seriously.

She does more HARM for tax & spend Democrat registration than 100 Ronald Reagans.

Thousands of "Undecideds" make-up their minds everytime Rosie opens her giant gaping yapper.

Remember how Michael Moore got GW Bush elected TWICE ?

Yea, it's kinda like that

You may have a point there Fh. But on the other side of that coin, she just incites the already frothing at the mouth whackjob liberals even more.

[nevadamedic]

Like I said pard... I can't say. :)

So I guess a 3 some with you, her and her wife is out of the question? :laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

So I guess a 3 some with you, her and her wife is out of the question? :laugh2:

She has a wife. How did she do that?

[Hobbit]

Seriously, who is surprised by this? Anyone?

[avatar4321]

Seriously, who is surprised by this? Anyone?

No. And I really dont care. The Louder Rosie gets, the better we look.

[-Cp]

LORD Please - Where are the Liberal Snipers when we need them!?!?!?!?

How long until it's socially acceptable to make people like that legitimate targets of gun-toting folks who love this Country and our Troops?

The favors I could do the world if I could just have 5 minutes alone w/ her, a pillow and no consequences....

[nevadamedic]

She has a wife. How did she do that?

She got married in San Francisco in protest to President Bush and within a month the California Supreme Court reversed her marriage. :laugh2:

[nevadamedic]

I think we should send Rosie over to Iraq to entertain our troops ;-)

[-Cp]

I think we should send Rosie over to Iraq to entertain our troops ;-)

Yeah, and let them give her a "blanket party".....

[avatar4321]

I think we should send Rosie over to Iraq to entertain our troops ;-)

Maybe we should send her to Al Qaeda. They would be capitulating within a few days;)

[chum43]

This is why celebrities should stop talking about politics so much... the media uses them and their loose tongues to distract everyone, instead of covering real issues and actually having legitimate news programs these idiots decide to cover bigger idiots running their mouths... it makes me sick.

anyone else notice how scarborough slipped in militia's to his lead in to rosie and calling troops terrorists.

giuliani is a oppurtunist who has at the very least exploited 9/11 shamelessly... but that is besides the point.

[Joe Steel]

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=8555E0A1-511E-43AA-A950-4B42219BA941&t=c2160&f=06/64&p=hotvideo_celebrity&fg=&GT1=9951

She is unreal! She has NO facts and just starts saying anything she wants.

Rosie was correct; at least, in one sense.

Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political end.

Remember "shock and awe?" Bush bombed Baghdad for the express purpose of forcing Saddam Hussein from power. That's terrorism by definition. In fact, the whole war on Iraq was intended to achieve "regime change; i.e. remove one government and install another. U. S. troops are participating in an act of terrorism so they're terrorists.

[krisy]

Ahhh,Rosie's weekly commentary...I look so froward to it. :lame2: The media loves her tho,they give her the press.

It's obvious she has lost it. She is so filled with hate that it overcomes her. I would love to see Rosie "interview" a soldier from Iraq. I dare her to say their stuff to their faces. She may try and stomp over Elizabeth,but let's see her interview someone that will stomp on her....I would pay to see it.

[Dilloduck]

Rosie was correct; at least, in one sense.

Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political end.

Remember "shock and awe?" Bush bombed Baghdad for the express purpose of forcing Saddam Hussein from power. That's terrorism by definition. In fact, the whole war on Iraq was intended to achieve "regime change; i.e. remove one government and install another. U. S. troops are participating in an act of terrorism so they're terrorists.

Garbage--The invasion of Iraq is not terrorism by any honest definition. It's war.

[Birdzeye]

Shes a fat ugly bitch. I want her to keep talking though, as she demonstrates the state of liberalism in America right now. SHE SPEAKS FOR ALL LIBERALS! :laugh2:


No she doesn't. That's unadulterated bullshit you're spewing.

[avatar4321]

Rosie was correct; at least, in one sense.

Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political end.

Remember "shock and awe?" Bush bombed Baghdad for the express purpose of forcing Saddam Hussein from power. That's terrorism by definition. In fact, the whole war on Iraq was intended to achieve "regime change; i.e. remove one government and install another. U. S. troops are participating in an act of terrorism so they're terrorists.

That has to be one of the most liberal definition of terrorism that ive ever seen. No sane reasonable person would actually accept that definition as close to accurate.

[Doniston]

I for one can not see why anyone pays the slightest attention to what rosey says. or her biggest protagonist--- Trump.

The two of them remind me greatly of several of the present posters on this forum that can only converse in the language of insults and putdowns.

[Pale Rider]

Yeah, and let them give her a "blanket party".....

They got tarps that big?

[-Cp]

Rosie was correct; at least, in one sense.

Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political end.

Remember "shock and awe?" Bush bombed Baghdad for the express purpose of forcing Saddam Hussein from power. That's terrorism by definition. In fact, the whole war on Iraq was intended to achieve "regime change; i.e. remove one government and install another. U. S. troops are participating in an act of terrorism so they're terrorists.

Dang - seems I'll need to use the same "pillow treatment" on you - you American-hating sack of shit....

[nevadamedic]

Maybe we should send her to Al Qaeda. They would be capitulating within a few days;)

Maybe Osama would like to take a break from screwing mountain goats where he's hiding and screw a cow.:laugh2:

[Hobbit]

Rosie was correct; at least, in one sense.

Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political end.

Remember "shock and awe?" Bush bombed Baghdad for the express purpose of forcing Saddam Hussein from power. That's terrorism by definition. In fact, the whole war on Iraq was intended to achieve "regime change; i.e. remove one government and install another. U. S. troops are participating in an act of terrorism so they're terrorists.

Words have meanings.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
synonym see FEAR
- ter·ror·less /-l&s/ adjective

There is, however, a word that means using violence to achieve a political end.

Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3
- war·less /-l&s/ adjective

[Joe Steel]

Words have meanings.

Yes they do.

ter·ror·ism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism) [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

[Hobbit]

Yes they do.

ter·ror·ism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism) [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

I tried. I really did, but I'm not wasting any more time on somebody who can't tell the difference between soldiers and terrorists. You're an A-1 jackass, and I doubt anything I can say will change that.

Just pray that people like you don't undermine us to the point that you find out what terrorism really is.

[manu1959]

Yes they do.

ter·ror·ism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism) [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

were the soldiers of the revolutionary army terrorists?

[5stringJeff]

Rosie was correct; at least, in one sense.

Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political end.

Remember "shock and awe?" Bush bombed Baghdad for the express purpose of forcing Saddam Hussein from power. That's terrorism by definition. In fact, the whole war on Iraq was intended to achieve "regime change; i.e. remove one government and install another. U. S. troops are participating in an act of terrorism so they're terrorists.

Wrong. What the U.S. did is called war. The campaign was directed at military targets, not civilian targets. In fact, the U.S. military went out of their way to avoid knocking out utilities. If we had wanted to flatten Baghdad, it would have been reduced to rubble in 24 hours, with hundreds of thousands of casualties.

On the other hand, what al-Qaeda did in 9/11, 3/11, and 7/7 is to specifically target large numbers of civilians in order to influence political decisions. That is terrorism. And you have a lot to learn.

[Joe Steel]

Wrong. What the U.S. did is called war. The campaign was directed at military targets, not civilian targets. In fact, the U.S. military went out of their way to avoid knocking out utilities. If we had wanted to flatten Baghdad, it would have been reduced to rubble in 24 hours, with hundreds of thousands of casualties.

On the other hand, what al-Qaeda did in 9/11, 3/11, and 7/7 is to specifically target large numbers of civilians in order to influence political decisions. That is terrorism. And you have a lot to learn.


Maybe but not from you.

Using bombs to effect "regime change" is terrorism.

By the way, the U. S. military regulary kills dozens of civilians. Sometimes they machine-gun a car and sometimes they bomb a wedding party. No matter. They're all dead.

[5stringJeff]

Maybe but not from you.

Using bombs to effect "regime change" is terrorism.

Was the Allied bombing of Nazi Germany in WWII terrorism? How about the German bombing of London? Here's a hint: when states engage in such acts with each other, it's called war.


By the way, the U. S. military regulary kills dozens of civilians. Sometimes they machine-gun a car and sometimes they bomb a wedding party. No matter. They're all dead.

Really? How many of these military members do you know who have gone out killing civilians for kicks? I personally know hundreds of soldiers who have been overseas, and I have yet to hear of one of these shoot-up-the-civilian joyrides. What I do hear about is Muslim insurgents attempting to kill American soliders and vice versa.

[avatar4321]

Maybe but not from you.

Using bombs to effect "regime change" is terrorism.

By the way, the U. S. military regulary kills dozens of civilians. Sometimes they machine-gun a car and sometimes they bomb a wedding party. No matter. They're all dead.

No it isnt. Its war. War does not equal terrorism.

[Gaffer]

Maybe but not from you.

Using bombs to effect "regime change" is terrorism.

By the way, the U. S. military regulary kills dozens of civilians. Sometimes they machine-gun a car and sometimes they bomb a wedding party. No matter. They're all dead.

That is an outright lie. You have no clue about the military.

[nevadamedic]

That is an outright lie. You have no clue about the military.

:clap:

[chum43]

no matter my opinion on either events, there is a difference between high profile killing of random civilians so that everyone can see, and carrying out a war, specially when the objective of that war in regards to civilians is don't kill unless you absolutely have to... both involve terror, and both involve intimidation, but in very different ways for very different purposes. If the US troops were terrorists they'd make sure everyone know about that number rosie came up with and make sure that the iraqi people knew they were next... the point is no matter how many Iraqis the US has killed it's in combat, not as a statement.

[krisy]

They got tarps that big?


:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

too funny,Pale!

[Joe Steel]

That is an outright lie. You have no clue about the military.

Are you saying those things haven't happened?

You're wrong.

They have.

[jimnyc]

Are you saying those things haven't happened?

You're wrong.

They have.

Has it happened at all? Yes

Does it happen "regularly" as you state? Nope. Why state this if it isn't true? Do you have facts to backup these regularly occurrences?

[Bulldog]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L20298442.htm

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_643.shtml


Bulldog.

[KarlMarx]

http://www.logoi.com/pastimages/img/dracula_5.jpg


A picture's worth a thousand words ---- this is what I wish would happen to that skank whore traitor bitch

[Bulldog]

So you'd have a fellow American slowly tortured to death by a psychopath because you disagree with their viewpoint?

How civilised! :)

Bulldog.

[Joe Steel]

Has it happened at all? Yes

Does it happen "regularly" as you state? Nope. Why state this if it isn't true? Do you have facts to backup these regularly occurrences?

Are you arguing the definition of "regularly?"

Replace the word with "frequently" if "regularly" is bothering you.

[Nukeman]

Are you arguing the definition of "regularly?"

Replace the word with "frequently" if "regularly" is bothering you.

I have yet to see your "FACTS" to back up your claim..

I do however see everyday the number of innocent civilians being killed by IED and other type of bombs made by true terrorist climb higher and higher.

You have misplaced your attention. You should try looking at who the real terrorist are and it most deffinitely is not the US Armed Forces.

DO civilians sometimes (not frequently or regularly)get injured and die in combat situations?? Hell yes they do. I would ask you to take note the US Soldier is the only one out there in the world today that goes out of thier way to avoid killing innocents. In fact our men and women aren't allowed to shoot unless fired upon and you know what sometimes that is just too late.

You are a real peice of work to lump the US Soldier in with a groupe of people who have no sactity for human life. I am sure that if asked all of our soldiers would much rather be home with tier families instead of trying to police a bunch of true terrorist with shackels on how they can engage them.

Get a life dimwit:fu:

:salute:

[Joe Steel]

You are a real peice of work to lump the US Soldier in with a groupe of people who have no sactity for human life. I am sure that if asked all of our soldiers would much rather be home with tier families instead of trying to police a bunch of true terrorist with shackels on how they can engage them.



Here are your facts.

Lawmaker: Marines killed Iraqis ‘in cold blood’ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343)

[KarlMarx]

So you'd have a fellow American slowly tortured to death by a psychopath because you disagree with their viewpoint?

How civilised! :)

Bulldog.
Yes, just like I'd like to beat the crap out of someone who insults my mother. I'd like to, but I don't. There is a difference between wanting and actually doing.

I don't support legislation, for instance, that hamstrings political discourse (i.e. the "fairness doctrine" bill in Congress, co-sponsored by my rat fink a$$ wipe congressman, Maurice Hinchey). Unfortunately, some people, many of whom are in Congress not only want to see opposing viewpoints squashed, but are making every effort to make it happen. That's the difference between KarlMarx, the poster, and Maurice Hinchey, the Congressman, and his ilk.

That said, I feel Rosie O'Donnell's comments are an abuse of her right to free speech. They are irresponsible and reprehensible. They only help enable the enemy and will, without a doubt, be used as propaganda against our troops by the enemy.

The fact that she doesn't take the next plane out of this country to Cuba or North Korea just proves to me what she's made of. That stuff being akin to the material I scrape off the bottom of my shoe after someone neglects to clean up after their pet.

[Monkeybone]

Here are your facts.

Lawmaker: Marines killed Iraqis ‘in cold blood’ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343)

ok..that is one...now give us the rest for frequnetly

[Nukeman]

Here are your facts.

Lawmaker: Marines killed Iraqis ‘in cold blood’ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343)

You are such a tool. You pull 1 incident that was braodcast all over the world. I have not nor will I dispute that "SOMETIMES" (once again note not freguently) this does happen, but to infer that all of our troops are terrorist is assinine. You couldn't post more than that one???

I could give you page after page of the number of deaths attributed to the "insurgents" a.k.a. terrorist, real terrorist!!

I bet you would have been one of those lovely human beings that would spit on returning Vietnam vets..

By the way one does not make FACTS see its plural you need more than one...

[Joe Steel]

ok..that is one...now give us the rest for frequnetly

Do your own research. You'll find plenty. If I were to do it for you, you'd whine about the meaning of "frequently."

[Joe Steel]

You are such a tool. You pull 1 incident that was braodcast all over the world. I have not nor will I dispute that "SOMETIMES" (once again note not freguently) this does happen, but to infer that all of our troops are terrorist is assinine. You couldn't post more than that one???

I could give you page after page of the number of deaths attributed to the "insurgents" a.k.a. terrorist, real terrorist!!

I bet you would have been one of those lovely human beings that would spit on returning Vietnam vets..

By the way one does not make FACTS see its plural you need more than one...

Have you been paying attention? The media have published numerous stories of U. S. atrocities. From the use of white phosphorous, depleted uranium and cluster munitions in populated areas to machine-gunning civilians at road blocks to careless bombing of civilian targets, the utter disregard of civilian casualties is tantamount to terrorism.

[Nukeman]

Do your own research. You'll find plenty. If I were to do it for you, you'd whine about the meaning of "frequently."

:lol: :lame2:


Here dipshit, I found a lovely sight for you try and read between the lines. If you go here you will notice that the vast majority of deaths are attributed to the real terrorist by roadside bombs, IED, random gunfire, and various other types of activity not practiced by our military. Infact if you take the time to research this ONE sight you will see the object, or target if you will, of most of the attacks were military and police...


Here ya go numnuts...
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

[Nukeman]

Have you been paying attention? The media have published numerous stories of U. S. atrocities. From the use of white phosphorous, depleted uranium and cluster munitions in populated areas to machine-gunning civilians at road blocks to careless bombing of civilian targets, the utter disregard of civilian casualties is tantamount to terrorism.

List them numbnuts

[Nukeman]

Have you been paying attention? The media have published numerous stories of U. S. atrocities. From the use of white phosphorous, depleted uranium and cluster munitions in populated areas to machine-gunning civilians at road blocks to careless bombing of civilian targets, the utter disregard of civilian casualties is tantamount to terrorism.

I have a big question for you.. Do you feel the allied forces in WWII were terrorist...????

Just answer the question and then I will give you a little information....

[Monkeybone]

Do your own research. You'll find plenty. If I were to do it for you, you'd whine about the meaning of "frequently."

oooo..nice arguement and way to present your case..i feel burned

[Joe Steel]

I have a big question for you.. Do you feel the allied forces in WWII were terrorist...????

Just answer the question and then I will give you a little information....

Military actions against military targets occasionally result in civilian deaths. For the most part, that's what happened in WWII. Isolated incidents such as the fire-bombing of Dresden and Tokyo were acts of terrorism.

The killing of civilians at in Korea at No Gun Ri and in Vietnam at My Lai may have been acts of terrorism.

[Joe Steel]

List them numbnuts

Please tell me your argument hasn't already collapsed to the desperate demand for citations of well-known facts.

[Nukeman]

Military actions against military targets occasionally result in civilian deaths. For the most part, that's what happened in WWII. Isolated incidents such as the fire-bombing of Dresden and Tokyo were acts of terrorism.

The killing of civilians at in Korea at No Gun Ri and in Vietnam at My Lai may have been acts of terrorism.

You my friend know very little about WWII than. There was blanket carpet bombing and not to mention a number of civilian trains bombed repeatedly. Whole towns were distroyed to get to a few key figures

By your very thought process and definition all the allied forces were and are terrorist.

What you fail to realize is that in the 40's the media were actullay ther to help the forces and support the military unlike the media of today who are only looking for the next atrocity or mistake.

[Nukeman]

Please tell me your argument hasn't already collapsed to the desperate demand for citations of well-known facts.

List them!!!!!!!!!!

[Nukeman]

Please tell me your argument hasn't already collapsed to the desperate demand for citations of well-known facts.

You are so stupid. I have already said that there have been a few instances however a few do not make for "regular or frequent" you have yet to supply anything new.....

:slap:

[Joe Steel]

You my friend know very little about WWII than. There was blanket carpet bombing and not to mention a number of civilian trains bombed repeatedly. Whole towns were distroyed to get to a few key figures

By your very thought process and definition all the allied forces were and are terrorist.

What you fail to realize is that in the 40's the media were actullay ther to help the forces and support the military unlike the media of today who are only looking for the next atrocity or mistake.

I said isolated incidents were acts of terrorism.

Do you understand English?

[Joe Steel]

You are so stupid. I have already said that there have been a few instances however a few do not make for "regular or frequent" you have yet to supply anything new.....

:slap:

Then what's the difference between your "few" and my "frequently?"

Are you looking for some number to save you?

If the U. S. napalmed 999 babies and not 1,000, would that be OK?

[Nukeman]

I said isolated incidents were acts of terrorism.

Do you understand English?
so the insurgents and other terrorist by attacking every day aren't doing acts of terror by your reasoning. So they also aren't terrorist, they must be "freedom fighters". They just target civilians all the time and run around in noncombatant clothing so they can blend in with the crowd. I dont think our boys in the military are doing that yet you call them terrorist....

Your saying isolated incidents now but up untill now you have been saying our military are terrorist. that would tell me that everything they do is for acts of terror....

[darin]

Then what's the difference between your "few" and my "frequently?"

Are you looking for some number to save you?

If the U. S. napalmed 999 babies and not 1,000, would that be OK?

Seek professional Help. I honestly believe you've got an illness man.

[Joe Steel]

so the insurgents and other terrorist by attacking every day aren't doing acts of terror by your reasoning. So they also aren't terrorist, they must be "freedom fighters". They just target civilians all the time and run around in noncombatant clothing so they can blend in with the crowd. I dont think our boys in the military are doing that yet you call them terrorist....

Your saying isolated incidents now but up untill now you have been saying our military are terrorist. that would tell me that everything they do is for acts of terror....

I didn't say anything about the bombings by Iraqis. They're undoubtedly terrorism as was "shock and awe." That was my original point. All the other outrages amount to terrorism because of U. S. military's disregard of civilian life.

[Monkeybone]

are we saying that all cilivians casualities are America's fault? or the few times that ppl were out-rightly killed? if all then no, you can't blame us when they suicide bomb a funeral procession and market places full of innocent and children to maybe get one US soldier. if the outright then, no, i know of that time the Marines did that which you posted and it was horrible and shameful. i looked and maybe i was asking the wrong question, but that was the only time of an outright killing. civilians get hurt in war, that happens, especially when you let the ppl that are being targeted live in the next room or walk into the street during a fight or drive past an IED that is on a timer. when we start using cluster bombs and MOABs on market places, then i will call them terrorist.

[darin]

of U. S. military's disregard of civilian life.

:fu: :fu: :fu:

[5stringJeff]

I didn't say anything about the bombings by Iraqis. They're undoubtedly terrorism as was "shock and awe." That was my original point. All the other outrages amount to terrorism because of U. S. military's disregard of civilian life.

But you are absolutely wrong. The "shock and awe" campaign was NOT meant to create civilian casualties, nor can it be defined as terrorism. As I posted before, the US military went out of its way to avoid civilian casualties in the Iraq War, specifically because we weren't there to kill civilians, we were there to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

[Joe Steel]

are we saying that all cilivians casualities are America's fault? or the few times that ppl were out-rightly killed?

No. I'm not saying all civilian deaths are caused by the U. S.

I am saying the U. S. is responsible for more than a few.

[Monkeybone]

understandable, but that is war. not like we are outright killing them like they do to their own ppl or ppl of different beliefs

[Nukeman]

I didn't say anything about the bombings by Iraqis. They're undoubtedly terrorism as was "shock and awe." That was my original point. All the other outrages amount to terrorism because of U. S. military's disregard of civilian life.
Here I bolded the part that really says what type of person you are. do you currently know or have you known anyone who has been in the military??

To make a blanket statement like that is beyond assinine. thats like me saying all liberals are baby killers because they support abortion...all liberals hate America because they support unbridled and unchecked immigration... I could go on and on but I think you might get my meaning. (maybe)

You are willing to villify the entire United States Armed forces because of a FEW isolated instances. Yet you are not willing to place the blame where it belongs. do you really think the soldiers want to be in harms way just so they get a chance to kill something??

I got to say at least your consistant in your stupidity...


I like how you call shock and awe a act of terrorism we targeted military and government building we didn't carpet bomb or randomly attack civilian areas and you put in the same catagory as a car bomb in a crowded market, a bomb in a girls school, a sucide attack on a crowded bus full of students. You are such a pathetic waste of flesh......

[Joe Steel]

But you are absolutely wrong. The "shock and awe" campaign was NOT meant to create civilian casualties, nor can it be defined as terrorism.

It seems like terrorism to me.


In their 1996 NDU book, "Shock and Awe," authors Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade wrote of the need to mount an assault with "sufficiently intimidating and compelling factors to force or otherwise convince an adversary to accept our will."

Shock and Awe: Guernica Revisited (http://www.alternet.org/story/15027/)

[Joe Steel]

understandable, but that is war. not like we are outright killing them like they do to their own ppl or ppl of different beliefs

If you were robbing a convenience store and accidentally shot a customer, you'd still be guilty of murder. That's pretty much the situation in Iraq. The U. S military may not intend to kill civilians but it is killing them because its rules of engagement permit the use of overwhelming force. Like terrorism, the use of overwhelming force is intended to intimidate enemies. Using battlefield levels of force where civilians are present is terrorism.

[darin]

It seems like terrorism to me.

That's because you lack the will to learn. :)

[Mr. P]

It seems like terrorism to me.

This is terrorism, bud. From none other than Human Rights Watch.
*************************************************

The new report analyzes the insurgency in Iraq and highlights the groups that are most responsible for the abuse, namely al-Qaeda in Iraq, Ansar al-Sunna and the Islamic Army in Iraq, which have all targeted civilians for abductions and executions. The first two groups have repeatedly boasted about massive car bombs and suicide bombs in mosques, markets, bus stations and other civilian areas. Such acts are war crimes and in some cases may constitute crimes against humanity, which are defined as serious crimes committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.

The report documents the assassinations of government officials, politicians, judges, journalists, humanitarian aid workers, doctors, professors and those deemed to be collaborating with the foreign forces in Iraq, including translators, cleaners and others who perform civilian jobs for the U.S.-led Multi-National Force. Insurgents have directed suicide and car bomb attacks at Shi`a mosques, Christian churches and Kurdish political parties with the purpose of killing civilians. Allegations that these communities are legitimate targets because they support the foreign forces in Iraq have no basis in international law, which requires the protection of any civilian who is not actively participating in the hostilities.

Insurgent groups also have tortured and summarily executed civilians and captured combatants in their custody, sometimes by beheading. And they have carried out attacks against legitimate military targets, such as army convoys, in such a manner that the foreseeable loss of civilian life was greatly disproportionate to the military gain.

[Joe Steel]

That's because you lack the will to learn. :)

To the contrary, it's because I, unlike you, have learned.


"Shock and awe" is the term the Bush administration uses for its massive hi-tech air strikes on the Iraqis. As a military strategy, it is discussed at length in a 1996 book published by the Command and Control Research Program (CCRP) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense of the United States.[1] Titled Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance, the book describes shock and awe as a strategy "aimed at influencing the will, perception, and understanding of an adversary rather than simply destroying military capability."[2] In this respect, shock and awe bears a striking similarity to terrorism as propaganda, in which psychological rather than material dominance is viewed as a primary war objective. (The terrorist attacks of September 11 also induced "shock and awe" in the U.S. population.)

Shock and awe (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shock_and_awe)

[Monkeybone]

If you were robbing a convenience store and accidentally shot a customer, you'd still be guilty of murder. That's pretty much the situation in Iraq. The U. S military may not intend to kill civilians but it is killing them because its rules of engagement permit the use of overwhelming force. Like terrorism, the use of overwhelming force is intended to intimidate enemies. Using battlefield levels of force where civilians are present is terrorism.

ENEMIES. not civilians. so in sense of that, you are comparing 9/11 to or 'shock and awe'...cause you know..they used an overwhelming force on civilians.

and permitting the Military to use overwhelming force? yah..wait until we are shot at and then radio in for permission to shoot back. yup..we are SO overwhelming them

[darin]

To the contrary, it's because I, unlike you, have learned.

Being brainwashed is NOT learning. You're mentally ill, man. Really. :(

[Bulldog]

As a Brit looking in from the outside, I'd appreciate it if you'd have the courtesy to read and inwardly digest the following. Please have the common sense to realise that I'm not criticising your country or your troops in any way...

It seems to me that none of the people here who are whinging about Rosie have actually watched the video linked to in the original post. If they have, then they're only hearing what they want to hear.

At NO point does she ever call the American troops "terrorists"! She clearly states several times that their actions are tantamount to terrorism. These are obviously two completely different issues.

She seems to be taking a 'whole world' view rather than just seeing the situation through the emotional eyes of an American citizen.

If anything, Joe Scarborough (whoever the hell he is) is on a witch hunt. He repeatedly says that she is actually calling the troops "terrorists", which she isn't. He's twisting her words. The way he talks about the Iraqis killing each other with a look of total distain and abhorrence on his face shows his complete intolerance and lack of understanding toward other cultures. The man is either totally naive or just a plain bigot.

If you ask almost any elderly European what their thoughts are on the situation, bearing in mind that we've been on the receiving end of two devastating wars in the last century, neither of which we started, you'd begin to understand that the war in Iraq is PERCEIVED by millions of people around the world as being an act of terrorism rather than an act of war.

Your President is responsible, either directly or indirectly, depending upon your viewpoint and affiliations, of causing the same end-effect as Hitler.

Take a look at the facts as seen by most of the rest of the civilised world...

A country HAS been taken by force and occupied against the will of the VAST majority of its people. It's civilian population ARE being killed in their hundreds of thousands. An ancient and established civilisation IS being FORCED at the point of a gun to adopt an alien (to them) set of ideals which go against almost everything they have believed in for centuries.

Just because one country doesn't like or understand the way another nation is run, that doesn't give them the right to storm in like spoilt brats and tell everybody to do things their way.

I have every sympathy for the situation that your troops find themselves in. They're being used like puppets by a President who behaves like a fascist dictator hell-bent on world domination.

In simple terms, you've lost 3,000 civilians and kept your liberty. The Iraqis have lost in the region of 600,000 civilians and are having their lives dictated at the point of a gun.

That's how most of the rest of the civilised world seems to see it anyway.

Bulldog.

[Hagbard Celine]

I saw a video once of an ape violently throwing luggage around his cage. Reminds me a lot of this thread :rolleyes:

[Hobbit]

As a Brit looking in from the outside, I'd appreciate it if you'd have the courtesy to read and inwardly digest the following. Please have the common sense to realise that I'm not criticising your country or your troops in any way...

It seems to me that none of the people here who are whinging about Rosie have actually watched the video linked to in the original post. If they have, then they're only hearing what they want to hear.

At NO point does she ever call the American troops "terrorists"! She clearly states several times that their actions are tantamount to terrorism. These are obviously two completely different issues.

She seems to be taking a 'whole world' view rather than just seeing the situation through the emotional eyes of an American citizen.

If anything, Joe Scarborough (whoever the hell he is) is on a witch hunt. He repeatedly says that she is actually calling the troops "terrorists", which she isn't. He's twisting her words. The way he talks about the Iraqis killing each other with a look of total distain and abhorrence on his face shows his complete intolerance and lack of understanding toward other cultures. The man is either totally naive or just a plain bigot.

If you ask almost any elderly European what their thoughts are on the situation, bearing in mind that we've been on the receiving end of two devastating wars in the last century, neither of which we started, you'd begin to understand that the war in Iraq is PERCEIVED by millions of people around the world as being an act of terrorism rather than an act of war.

Your President is responsible, either directly or indirectly, depending upon your viewpoint and affiliations, of causing the same end-effect as Hitler.

Take a look at the facts as seen by most of the rest of the civilised world...

A country HAS been taken by force and occupied against the will of the VAST majority of its people. It's civilian population ARE being killed in their hundreds of thousands. An ancient and established civilisation IS being FORCED at the point of a gun to adopt an alien (to them) set of ideals which go against almost everything they have believed in for centuries.

Just because one country doesn't like or understand the way another nation is run, that doesn't give them the right to storm in like spoilt brats and tell everybody to do things their way.

I have every sympathy for the situation that your troops find themselves in. They're being used like puppets by a President who behaves like a fascist dictator hell-bent on world domination.

In simple terms, you've lost 3,000 civilians and kept your liberty. The Iraqis have lost in the region of 600,000 civilians and are having their lives dictated at the point of a gun.

That's how most of the rest of the civilised world seems to see it anyway.

Bulldog.

So, she says they're most definitely guilty of terrorism, but she's not saying they're terrorists, and the only reason we're offended by it is because we're shallow, overly emotional Americans who don't think our troops can ever do any wrong? Please tell me you're not that much of a jackass.

Let's flip it around a bit. What if I was to say, "You know, Bulldog, you commit murder all the time, but I don't think you're a murderer," or "You steal things all the time, but you're not a thief," would that make any sense to you?

[Monkeybone]

'then what happened'

'well...he came up and told him to freeze...searched him...then handcuffed and arrested him.'

'oh so it was a cop?'

'oh no...i didn't say that he was a cop, just that he was doing stuff like one.'

[Bulldog]

So, she says they're most definitely guilty of terrorism, but she's not saying they're terrorists, and the only reason we're offended by it is because we're shallow, overly emotional Americans who don't think our troops can ever do any wrong? Please tell me you're not that much of a jackass.

Let's flip it around a bit. What if I was to say, "You know, Bulldog, you commit murder all the time, but I don't think you're a murderer," or "You steal things all the time, but you're not a thief," would that make any sense to you?

Watch the video.

And don't lower yourself by insulting someone for not sharing your point of view.

Bulldog.

[Hobbit]

Watch the video.

And don't lower yourself by insulting someone for not sharing your point of view.

Bulldog.

I did watch the video. Your insistance that only somebody who hasn't watched the video could possibly disagree with you is idiotic.

And I don't insult people for not sharing my point of view. I insult people because they deserve it, and you are an unqualified jackass who is either intentionally trying to stir up trouble or about as intelligent as a puddle of pond scum.

You're also going to have to come up with more than, "You need to watch the video," to explain to me how accusing somebody of committing acts of terrorism is somehow different than calling that person a terrorist.

[Bulldog]

It's all in the way you interpret the words she's using.

From a European English perspective, she is not calling your troops terrorists. I've also made it perfectly clear that I'm not calling them terrorists either.

Now quit with the insults!

Bulldog.

[darin]

It's all in the way you interpret the words she's using.

From a European English perspective, she is not calling your troops terrorists. I've also made it perfectly clear that I'm not calling them terrorists either.

Now quit with the insults!

Bulldog.


What defines a terrorist?

here's the Answer:

"What they do."

Claiming our troops 'engage in terror-activities' MEANS they are terrorists. Mince words all you like - the fact is, you, and she are DEAD wrong.

[Hobbit]

It's all in the way you interpret the words she's using.

From a European English perspective, she is not calling your troops terrorists. I've also made it perfectly clear that I'm not calling them terrorists either.

Now quit with the insults!

Bulldog.

Awwwww, is your skin too thin? I'll quit insulting you when you show an ounce of intelligence, got it. I don't care that you've got this whole other perspective thing going on here, accusing somebody of terrorism is calling somebody a terrorist, just as accusing somebody of murder is calling that person a murderer. The thing is the action, and the two cannot be seperated, now stop making excuses for that blubbering vagina and rub those two brain cells of yours together until you figure out that words have meanings.

[Bulldog]

Awwwww, is your skin too thin? I'll quit insulting you when you show an ounce of intelligence, got it. I don't care that you've got this whole other perspective thing going on here, accusing somebody of terrorism is calling somebody a terrorist, just as accusing somebody of murder is calling that person a murderer. The thing is the action, and the two cannot be seperated, now stop making excuses for that blubbering vagina and rub those two brain cells of yours together until you figure out that words have meanings.

The thickness of my skin is just fine thanks.

What I take exception to is somebody who I'm fairly sure has a high level of intelligence repeatedly descending to the level of childish insults when all I've done is express an opinion.

I'm not saying that you have to agree with me or most of the other 95% of the world's population. Your views are, well, your views.

Bulldog.

[Hobbit]

The thickness of my skin is just fine thanks.

What I take exception to is somebody who I'm fairly sure has a high level of intelligence repeatedly descending to the level of childish insults when all I've done is express an opinion.

I'm not saying that you have to agree with me or most of the other 95% of the world's population. Your views are, well, your views.

Bulldog.

No, I'm calling you a jackass, which you are, for stating factually false statements, such as the statement that one can be accused of terror without being called a terrorist.

[Bulldog]

No, I'm calling you a jackass, which you are, for stating factually false statements, such as the statement that one can be accused of terror without being called a terrorist.

I believe that you've watched the video in its entirety, but I don't believe that you've actually 'seen' it.

I sat and watched it intently with a pen and notepad to hand specifically for the purpose of making a mark every time Rosie specifically named your troops as being terrorists. The page remains blank.

I experience terror at my local fairground. That doesn't make the guys who run the rides "terrorists".

I think I may now understand why non-Americans don't visit this forum very often. The vast majority of the members around here don't want to hear what the rest of the world thinks, even if it is put over in a polite and constructive manner.

Bulldog.

[stephanie]

I think I may now understand why non-Americans don't visit this forum very often. The vast majority of the members around here don't want to hear what the rest of the world thinks, even if it is put over in a polite and constructive manner.

Bulldog.

There are plenty of us reading what you have to say...

Myself, I haven't seen anyone be rude in their response to you..

You see her saying things one way, and other's see it differently..That happens..

Buck up, buttercup.:laugh2:

[Hobbit]

I believe that you've watched the video in its entirety, but I don't believe that you've actually 'seen' it.

Oh please, that sounds like something out of one of those boring scenes in the Matrix II & III that I wish I'd slept through. "But you already know the answer. You're looking for the question..." That pseudo-philisophical crap doesn't work on me. It's not profound, it's just stupid.


I sat and watched it intently with a pen and notepad to hand specifically for the purpose of making a mark every time Rosie specifically named your troops as being terrorists. The page remains blank.

Once again, I'd like to remind you that words have meaning, and accusing somebody of terrorism is the exact equivalent of calling that person a terrorist.


I experience terror at my local fairground. That doesn't make the guys who run the rides "terrorists".

Fear, yes, but I doubt terror. Even if you do experience terror (wuss), it's not the kind of terror fatass there is talking about. She's talking about terrorism, which isn't the same as being afraid of the clown at the fairground.


I think I may now understand why non-Americans don't visit this forum very often. The vast majority of the members around here don't want to hear what the rest of the world thinks, even if it is put over in a polite and constructive manner.

Bulldog.

Plenty of non-Americans visit this board, and they're a lot smarter and more polite than you are. Your bottom line is, "I'm always right and anybody who doesn't agree with me just doesn't understand what I'm saying." It's not only arrogant, it's condescending.

[Bulldog]

There are plenty of us reading what you have to say...

Myself, I haven't seen anyone be rude in their response to you..

You see her saying things one way, and other's see it differently..That happens..

Buck up, buttercup.:laugh2:

Thanks. :)

Exactly! I'm not arguing with anybody. I'm just defending my views and being sworn at for it.

Bulldog.

[Mr. P]

I believe that you've watched the video in its entirety, but I don't believe that you've actually 'seen' it.

I sat and watched it intently with a pen and notepad to hand specifically for the purpose of making a mark every time Rosie specifically named your troops as being terrorists. The page remains blank.

I experience terror at my local fairground. That doesn't make the guys who run the rides "terrorists".

I think I may now understand why non-Americans don't visit this forum very often. The vast majority of the members around here don't want to hear what the rest of the world thinks, even if it is put over in a polite and constructive manner.

Bulldog.

No here's the deal, Bulldog. You and someone else were joking about "Proper English" vs "American English" just a few days ago, right? Will, in "American English" she did call the soldiers terrorist. Maybe not for you in the "Kings English" but she damn sure did for us in "American English". Oh, it is her language BTW and she knows exactly what she said.

[Bulldog]

No here's the deal, Bulldog. You and someone else were joking about "Proper English" vs "American English" just a few days ago, right? Will, in "American English" she did call the soldiers terrorist. Maybe not for you in the "Kings English" but she damn sure did for us in "American English". Oh, it is her language BTW and she knows exactly what she said.

Ok. Point taken. Thanks for the civil reply. :)

Bulldog.

[KarlMarx]

BD...

First of all, the commentators on the video clip are from MSNBC, which is quite liberal, not conservative. In fact, if you listen to some of the comments made by the commentators, they emphasize that they are against the war in Iraq. In spite of that, most of them are quite appalled at Rosie O'Donnell's comments.

Secondly, the 600,000 deaths myth is often repeated and not supported by evidence. The number is probably less than 100,000 and most of those deaths were not caused by coalition forces but by the insurgency.

Thirdly, I have to wonder why 100,000 deaths after the fall of Saddam Hussein have more weight than the 1,000,000 plus deaths committed by Saddam Hussein's regime?

Fourthly, anyone who has followed Rosie O'Donnell's long string of exaggerations, misstatements, outright lies and unsubstantiated accusations and claims knows that it is safe to assume that the claims she is a loud mouth, belligerent ignoramus are very close to the truth. She never has once offered any type of evidence for the claims she has made in the past.

Fifthly, the British didn't seem to worry about world opinion when they fought the Argentines in the Falkland Islands. I also don't seem to remember the Chinese getting too worried about world opinion when they invaded Tibet. Come to think of it, I don't think the French worried too much about world opinion during their war against the Algerians. Now that I think of it, the Russians aren't too worried about world opinion in their suppression of the Chechen resistance, their interference with the Ukrainian elections.... Gee, come to think of it, the Iranians aren't too worried about world opinion when it comes to building those "nuclear power plants", especially when they plan to place them on top of long range missiles and direct them at Israel. Silly me, it seems that world opinion doesn't mean much to Pakistan and India in their dispute over the Kashmir. Oh yes, and Syria, they don't seem to give a damn about world opinion when they sponsor Hamas to interfere in the government of Lebanon. Oh, and Hugo Chavez doesn't seem too worried about world opinion, nor does Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro....

But when the Yanks take it upon themselves to enforce United Nations resolutions, free an oppressed people, arrest a tyrant for crimes against humanity THEN world opinion matters.

It's a good thing for you and your fellow Brits BD that FDR didn't worry about world opinion when the Nazis were bombing your cities and attempting to sink every convoy from the United States to Britain!

[Bulldog]

Now that's what I call a well structured reply! :)

I'm beginning to see the picture from your angle now.

Bulldog.

[Abbey Marie]

BD...

First of all, the commentators on the video clip are from MSNBC, which is quite liberal, not conservative. In fact, if you listen to some of the comments made by the commentators, they emphasize that they are against the war in Iraq. In spite of that, most of them are quite appalled at Rosie O'Donnell's comments.

Secondly, the 600,000 deaths myth is often repeated and not supported by evidence. The number is probably less than 100,000 and most of those deaths were not caused by coalition forces but by the insurgency.

Thirdly, I have to wonder why 100,000 deaths after the fall of Saddam Hussein have more weight than the 1,000,000 plus deaths committed by Saddam Hussein's regime?

Fourthly, anyone who has followed Rosie O'Donnell's long string of exaggerations, misstatements, outright lies and unsubstantiated accusations and claims knows that it is safe to assume that the claims she is a loud mouth, belligerent ignoramus are very close to the truth. She never has once offered any type of evidence for the claims she has made in the past.

Fifthly, the British didn't seem to worry about world opinion when they fought the Argentines in the Falkland Islands. I also don't seem to remember the Chinese getting too worried about world opinion when they invaded Tibet. Come to think of it, I don't think the French worried too much about world opinion during their war against the Algerians. Now that I think of it, the Russians aren't too worried about world opinion in their suppression of the Chechen resistance, their interference with the Ukrainian elections.... Gee, come to think of it, the Iranians aren't too worried about world opinion when it comes to building those "nuclear power plants", especially when they plan to place them on top of long range missiles and direct them at Israel. Silly me, it seems that world opinion doesn't mean much to Pakistan and India in their dispute over the Kashmir. Oh yes, and Syria, they don't seem to give a damn about world opinion when they sponsor Hamas to interfere in the government of Lebanon. Oh, and Hugo Chavez doesn't seem too worried about world opinion, nor does Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro....

But when the Yanks take it upon themselves to enforce United Nations resolutions, free an oppressed people, arrest a tyrant for crimes against humanity THEN world opinion matters.

It's a good thing for you and your fellow Brits BD that FDR didn't worry about world opinion when the Nazis were bombing your cities and attempting to sink every convoy from the United States to Britain!


:clap: :beer: :bow2: :salute:

[Mr. P]

:clap: :beer: :bow2: :salute:

What she said! And a :2up: