We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


SimplyMichael -> We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 12:18:16 PM)

They threaten our very existance and wouldn't it be better to live as slaves than to die as free men.  The power and strength they possess is unequaled by the West, why prolong the agony and suffering, surrender now while we still have time to sue for peace!

That is what I think Republicans must believe for why else are they so terrified that they will shred the constitution, destroy the noble values our forefathers fought and died for, sully our nation's great reputation as the most noble country on earth?

To me, I see some ragged bands of Arabs who hate us but don't have the power to overthrow their pathetic little governments, when they all managed to band together for a few weeks, can't defeat a tiny band of Jews living on a sliver of land, and in general have never managed to do much other than rape women and then stone them to death.

I am really curious why Republican's are so terrified of them?  Worse case, Iran and Pakistan band together, SA blows up their oil wells and they tell us all to go to hell. 

A year later, our economy is hurt, a few cities have been nuked but the ME is a radioactive wastland devoid of people, Indonesia is the only place large numbers of Muslims are found, and we are pumping SA oil out for ourselves. 

I sure wouldn't surrender to them but I guess the Republicans would.  So, can anyone explain to me why they fear the Muslims so much?




EPGAH -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 12:26:19 PM)

Wouldn't turning our enemies into a radioactive wasteland be quantified as "racist and bigoted"--by people IN America--let alone the worldwide community?
Moreover, China and Iran are buddies, so we'd get to see if a nuclear-armed China is really dedicated to peace, or if they just want the POWER to force their will over other countries, and scare America into not "interfering" with their nefarious deeds...
I believe the latter, look at the way their less-mature protege North Korea is behaving: trying to extort food and money from the civilized world!




SimplyMichael -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 12:30:38 PM)

I wasn't as clear as I meant to be.  I meant we nuked the ME AFTER they nuked us.  That is the fear of Republicans, is that they will nuke us.  The point is that they could only nuke a couple of cities and we could level the entire ME into a slag pile.

The thought that the entire united Arab/Muslim world is a threat to the West is laughable to us liberals and I would like to understand what is it that Republicans find so terrifying.




LadyLynx -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 12:38:08 PM)

I think it's the idea that someone else, (like Muslim countries.) find our American values to be immoral, even corrupt.  And plus they seem to have a general need to have a scapegoat to pin the blame on.  Look at what happened during the 'McCarthy era'




EPGAH -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 12:41:56 PM)

They have a better way to victimize us than to nuke us: They have the oil our machines need, both as lubricant, and more importantly, as FUEL. A tiny hike in per-barrel oil prices leads to a HUGE leap in per-gallon gas prices! Plus all the price-gouging that would happen in a time of national crisis (Both have been experientially proven, and you know the old saying, "What is past is also future"...More commonly stated as "Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it")




NorthernGent -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 12:42:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH

Wouldn't turning our enemies into a radioactive wasteland be quantified as "racist and bigoted"-------let alone the worldwide community?



It would be fair to expect a more hard-line condemnation than being labelled "racist".




EPGAH -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 12:56:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
It would be fair to expect a more hard-line condemnation than being labelled "racist".

True, but whereas I am more afraid of the MILITARY repercussions, our politicians are afraid of merely being called racist.
There's an old saying, "Never give a loaded revolver to a retarded child"...Can we assume it scales up to "Never give a NUKE to an immature country?" The reason this is relevant China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea are all in various stages of nuclear program...Iran wants to join the club...They're dangerous fanatics even WITHOUT nukes, but WITH nukes, any of them can "go rogue" and attack us--or just bully the rest of the world into doing what they want, because while the world has grown used to America's sense of self-restraint, other countries have no such compunctions...And of course, terrorists not OFFICIALLY affiliated with any country can steal their nukes easier than they can ours! Although if caught, other countries also have no compunction about the punishment of traitors...May whatever God they believe in have mercy upon them, because the corporeal authorities in those countries don't have the "quality of mercy"!
Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, in some areas of the Middle East, merchants have (or at least had, it was some years back) gold and jewelry IN THE OPEN, perfectly inviting theft--but they actually DO chop off the hands of thieves (Dad got to see one, I was too little; although it's more akin to a public amputation than the barbaric hack&slash that it's popularized as) Either way, the THREAT of serious consequences kept the gold and jewels safter there than they would be in alarmed cases in the civilized world!




SimplyMichael -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 1:10:06 PM)

quote:

The reason this is relevant China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea are all in various stages of nuclear program...Iran wants to join the club...They're dangerous fanatics even WITHOUT nukes, but WITH nukes, any of them can "go rogue" and attack us--or just bully the rest of the world into doing what they want,


Again, what I wonder is why the abject fear that they can "go rogue and attack us"?  Concern and preperation are one thing, I am a firm believer in aircraft carriers for that very reason, but only a coward would allow Iran to bully them, again, why would you allow Iran to bully you and what would you allow them to bully you into?




NorthernGent -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 1:11:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH

They're dangerous fanatics even WITHOUT nukes, but WITH nukes, any of them can "go rogue" and attack us--or just bully the rest of the world into doing what they want, because while the world has grown used to America's sense of self-restraint, other countries have no such compunctions



Fanatics, bullies and self-restraint eh.

You'd be surprised to hear world opinion on which nations fall into the categories of fanatics and bullies.




EPGAH -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 1:34:55 PM)

Yes...We give out trillions in money, food, and meds, in "foreign-aid," but when we ask for a favor in return for that money, we're worse than Hitler...But we don't DARE turn off the gravy-train, for fear of the international backlash...
Something like a beggar saying, "If you don't feed me and give me money, I'm gonna call you names...I'm gonna TELL!"...Then if you give money to that beggar and ask it to get a job, it laughs in your face...Tiniest bit ungrateful!
But America yields to it, again and again, rather than say, "Aw, shut up!"
Of course, real-world examples are a tad more serious: America offered food to North Korea in exchange for dismantling their nuclear program. When they suddenly got ballsy enough to refuse--America KEPT sending food!
After the airplaine-bombing the World Trade Center, America waited a few years to choose WHOM to get vengeance on. If we had struck when the foundation was still hot, we would've had almost the WHOLE WORLD on our side. Now, our war looks like a completely unrelated attack! (Which it may or may not be, let's leave that to better politicos than me to decide...)
But still, our restraint is what has prevented us from pulling out our ground-troops and simply sending in a few planes full of bombs, turning the whole country into a scorched parking-lot.
Some on this very site have advanced a chilling theory that this is America's method of population-control: Killing our own people, rather than eliminating "excess population" from some ungrateful Third World country...I nominate Africa, who seem to believe that pollution and birth-control should be America's problem, and they believe they should be allowed to keep breeding, keep polluting; business as usual, or even better, Mexico, who believes America makes a great unfunded penal colony! After all, we MUST be racist for not wanting the excess criminals from Mexico to transform our country into a mimic of the very one they're fleeing: Overpopulated, corrupt, and disease-ridden, right?
As a closing thought, remember which country ALWAYS helps out whenever there's an earthquake, a flood, etc., in one of those countries that hate us so terribly...It's not China...It's not Britain...It's not even France! If we really WERE fanatics, we would just look the other way and say, "Oh, well, God's will and/or Darwinism"...But America always helps!
In fact, in Inda, after a certain recent tsunami, Americans sent SO MANY clothes in support of the families who had "lost everything" that they laid it all out on the beach, picked through it, took only what they wanted, and left the rest to ROT! This is not only offensive from a moralistic "Beggars can't be choosers" kind of standpoint, but also that AMERICANS are supposed to be the "decadent"/'wasteful" ones, right?




popeye1250 -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 1:36:53 PM)

I'm an Independant but I'm not scared in the least.
They can go ahead and nuke us but we have an ace in the hole.
Nuclear Submarines.
Just one (1) of them could take out Syria, Iran, Pakistan and Egypt.




topcat96 -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 1:39:42 PM)

Typical American attitude.....

1) If it moves, shoot it
2) If it doesn't move, shoot it until it does
3) Go to 1, do not pass GO, do not collect $200




DesertRat -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 1:39:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
You'd be surprised to hear world opinion on which nations fall into the categories of fanatics and bullies.


What??!!?? They think we're fanatical bullies? Just because we unilaterally invade a sovereign nation, kill thousands of innocent civilians, tell people they've gotta be "for" us, or else they're "against" us, rename food to slight people who don't support us, and torture people? Sheesh! And they think we lack self-restraint, too? We'll show 'em...we'll just invade Iran a little bit. Stupid rest of the world. Don't they know they owe us bigtime for singlehandedly winning WWII and stopping Communism without bloodshed? Fuck 'em.

oops




SimplyMichael -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 1:43:31 PM)

First off, I realize this person's views are FAR more extreme than most Republicans...

quote:

Yes...We give out trillions in money, food, and meds, in "foreign-aid," but when we ask for a favor in return for that money, we're worse than Hitler...But we don't DARE turn off the gravy-train, for fear of the international backlash...


You do realize all that foreign-aid has strings attached and one of the most common is you have to use our "gift" to buy product X from Acme American Company.  Not exactly free money.

quote:

After the airplaine-bombing the World Trade Center, America waited a few years to choose WHOM to get vengeance on. If we had struck when the foundation was still hot, we would've had almost the WHOLE WORLD on our side. Now, our war looks like a completely unrelated attack! (Which it may or may not be, let's leave that to better politicos than me to decide...)


Uh, the world WAS with it and STILL is helping us deal with ONE of the countries that attacked us (the rest are Bush's allies).  Iraq had ZERO to do with 9/11 but thanks for showing us how effective the lies have been.

quote:

But still, our restraint is what has prevented us from pulling out our ground-troops and simply sending in a few planes full of bombs, turning the whole country into a scorched parking-lot.


See above...

quote:

I nominate Africa, who seem to believe that pollution and birth-control should be America's problem, and they believe they should be allowed to keep breeding,


This would be funny if it were not so terrifying.  We don't allow African nations to talk about birth control, thank Bush and the nutcase unchristian right wingers for that.




topcat96 -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 1:44:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertRat

What??!!?? They think we're fanatical bullies? Just because we unilaterally invade a sovereign nation, kill thousands of innocent civilians, tell people they've gotta be "for" us, or else they're "against" us, rename food to slight people who don't support us, and torture people? Sheesh! And they think we lack self-restraint, too? We'll show 'em...we'll just invade Iran a little bit. Stupid rest of the world. Don't they know they owe us bigtime for singlehandedly winning WWII and stopping Communism without bloodshed? Fuck 'em.

oops


Did you? I'm fairly sure the history books on those subjects tells a somewhat different story lol




NICouple -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 1:52:43 PM)

Politicians will use any excuse to extend there power and reduce the "rights' of the people.

don't mater which party, they both believe they have the right to tell you who to love, how to live, what you can and can't say, think the Dems are going to repeal Patriot? not a hope.

war on drugs/terror/pedophiles/hippies/commies/degenerates/heresy/Jews/Muslims/Catholics/blacks/Protestants/Indians/Pagans what ever.




Shawn1066 -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 1:53:34 PM)

Problems in the Middle East have much farther reaching effects than JUST the Middle East.  Just consider two concepts:

A.  Iran wants to dominate the Middle East and wipe Israel off of the map...quite literally.  The only thing keeping them in check is the US buildup in the region(agree with it or not) and Saudi influence in the region(which is crumbling to some degree).  Previously, Saddam Hussein was a counterbalance to Iranian interests in the area...and the US wants a strong, stable Iraq to play a similar role.  If we leave Iraq in ruin, without any stability...then Iran will be more than happy to come in and take over for us.  That alone would allow it to surpass Saudi Arabia when it came to influence in the region.

B.  Iran has a defacto military alliance with Russia.  Russia wants to be a global superpower again, and Vladimir Putin seems intent on getting it there.  Having Iran, and an Iranian dominated Middle East, in his back pocket would be a huge step in the right direction.  Even though they've been our ally for a few years now, Russia would love nothing more than us to get a black eye.  That's just how things work.  It's politics.

It's all about balance and counterbalance in the region.  It always HAS been.  If one anti-US power is allowed to dominate the region, then things are not good for us by any stretch of the imagination.  Iran is unpredictable enough.  A Russia backed Iran is extremely deadly.  A Russia backed Iran with a stranglehold on the Middle East?  I don't think I need to spell out how bad that is.

You can never, ever let one power dominate a region like that...  It's foolhardy.  Even Terrorists can become a Superpower under the right circumstances.  An Iranian dominated, Russian backed, Middle East could be just that...and they would most certainly try to wipe Israel off of the map.  Which would, of course, drag us in...as well as the UK, France(On our side again!), and various members of the EU.  Not fun at all.

The Middle East is a powder keg for a reason.  There isn't really another region in the world, save for  Eastern Asia, where so many different things can go wrong. 

Not saying it will happen...but it very well could happen.  You wanted a Republican perspective.  There, you have one.  I respect your view of the matter even if I don't quite agree with it.




DesertRat -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 1:58:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: topcat96
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertRat

What??!!?? They think we're fanatical bullies? Just because we unilaterally invade a sovereign nation, kill thousands of innocent civilians, tell people they've gotta be "for" us, or else they're "against" us, rename food to slight people who don't support us, and torture people? Sheesh! And they think we lack self-restraint, too? We'll show 'em...we'll just invade Iran a little bit. Stupid rest of the world. Don't they know they owe us bigtime for singlehandedly winning WWII and stopping Communism without bloodshed? Fuck 'em.

oops


Did you? I'm fairly sure the history books on those subjects tells a somewhat different story lol


Those history books were written by liberals. Liberals working for the terrorists, maybe without even realizing it. Besides, the great American thinker, philosopher, and anti-Semite Henry Ford, said it all when he said: "Well, history is more or less the bunk." So there.

Bob




mnottertail -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 2:05:09 PM)

Since Saddam Hussein was a stabilizing force in the region, we felt it necessary to destabilize it.  The US has not been in the region since the fall of Shah an Shah and there was no and is no buildup to check in Iran (agree with it or not). Nobody will surpass quiet and ruthless Saudia Arabia in the region for at least until our great-great-grandchildren have become worm food.

Iran may be blowing Russia, but will no more become a Russian puppet than a United States tart. 

Our vital short term interest in the area lies with oil.  Now that is not gonna happen, by reason of inept and ignorant policy and effort.

There is nobody with the power and will of Israel in the area militarily and there is none in the offing beyond our great-great-grandchildrens visit to stiffyville.

You want a true conservative opinion, you have one.

Ron  






EPGAH -> RE: We Should Surrender to the Muslims Now (10/16/2007 2:14:25 PM)

I take offense on the "rename food" bit! While it WAS a slight to France, France was selling Iraq surface-to-air missiles...Perhaps just to insult us?
But it's not without precedent, during World War II, hamburgers (Named after Hamburg, an enemy city), were called Salisbury Steaks, since Salisbury was an Anglo-American name, therefore "safe"...although eating French Fries and Hamburgers doesn't make you any less American, any more than eating pizza makes you more Chinese (Pizza was actually a Chinese invention, although the toppings were different) or eating pasta makes you more Italian.
(Secondary note: The "essential" Chinese food, cashew chicken, is a Springfield, Missouri invention, NOTHING to do with Chinese at all!)
Moreover, as to sovereignty, during war, sovereignty is suppressed, or sometimes even eliminated entirely: Germany used Belgium as basically a road, and France more or less bent over for Germany, and finally, America HAD to violate the sovereignty of an expanded Germany to bring the war to an end. Mexico, among--but above and beyond--other countries, has violated America's sovereign borders, and claims that our culture should adapt to service theirs. (Insert Borg joke here) Some are saying that sovereignty and borders are obsolete concepts, but this is only to create a larger "trading bloc"--more money for the Big Money--rather than any humanitarian goals, as the world cannot sustain more people at a high standard-of-living...but who wants a lower standard of living?
Third, please note that the conflicts we won, despite any babbling about the Greater Good, were "vengeance"! Revolutionary War: Obvious! War of 1812: Basically, Revolutionary War--Round 2 (Actually caused by British Navy kidnapping Americans and forcing them to work on their ships, but for substandard wages!) Mexican-American War: They invited us to buy their lands, then tried to kick us back OFF them...Americans don't deal well with being kicked around! World War I: The American tourists on the Lusitania...Germany thought they could pay us off! How rude! World War II: Pearl Harbor. Why WERE those planes grouped up to make a more convenient target? Did we really think Japan would warn us BEFORE they attacked, rather than AFTER?
And yes, I firmly believe Bush is friends with some of the very people who attack us...Remember, this has been compared with Vietnam, where President Johnson's wife owned the shipping companies that sent supplies to our troops, so she profit(eer)ed off prolonging the war as long as possible. Since we have precedent, I don't doubt something similar happening here.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875