List of actors who would kick Tim Robins ass

I don't have anything to say about your discussion here but you did bring up an interesting point Nibblesworth. We did go after germany which had been FDR's hope all along, but it was not the congress's or the country's. Hitler made one of his major blunders by stupidly declaring war on the US on Dec. 10th or so. He got played big time by the japanese, hoping that they would open a second front in the east against russia, in return for his declaring war on the US.
Had hitler not declared war on us, i think the US would have concentrated on Japan only. As nothing would have changed between us and the european theater. And the public did not want a second european war. I am no liberal or dem just a history buff who is not taking sides here.
T

 

If Heather tried to beat me up, I wouldn't find back. i would wait until she was exhausted and then feed her grapes.

 

I hate them all. I trust none of them. What a hellhole.

 

Anyway, getting back to kicking Tim Robbins' ass...With no disrespect to the actors who served, how many of them did so voluntarily? Comparing their generation to today's is apples vs. oranges, since what they faced was truly a global issue. Young men were drafted into a war, the outcome of which carried with it the future of free society. It's easy to dismiss war protesters as whiny and non-confrontational, but combat today is nothing like it was 60 years ago and shouldn't be held up to it. I personally feel that Hussein needed dealing with, but I don't persecute those who disagree with the action. Probably the most ridiculous issue to come out of the Iraq whatever-you-want-to-call-it was the whole Natalie Main protest. She criticized Bush, and look how many other C&W stars siezed an opportunity to beat the "patriotism" drum and capitalize with cheap anti-Dixie Chicks rhetoric and cheesy USA ballads. It's dangerous and ignorant to wave the flag and say that America is all about freedom and choices, unless of course they contradict what I feel and think.

As far as Germany in WWII, it was inevitable in my opinion. We were nearly waging a soft war already, running supplies to the British, confronting German blockades. Hitler's undoing, as with all brilliantly insane men, was his feeling of invincibility. He didn't care if the US got involved--he was always going to win.

 

You are right. At the time he was on a major role and did not care.
T

 

So how do you feel the real heroes of the silver screen acted when compared to the hollywonks today who spray out anti-American drivel as they bite the hand that feeds them? Can you imagine these stars of yester-year saying they hate our flag, making anti-war speaches, marching in anti-American parades and saying they hate our president?


i like that quote

 

Gee, isn't this a pleasant discussion. It's really a shame that some people can't help but turn this into something personal and start behaving like a lunatic. Maybe my peaceful, leave everyone else alone in hopes of being left alone myself strategy (aka, the 'everyone loves norway' strategy) to life really is doomed: After all, if we can't even have a simple discussion on an internet board without someone becomming that enraged and engaging in that kind of bull****... Damn shame, if you ask me.

As for history, as RacerRX has educated you, Germany declared war on the US. We also were coming to the aid of allies, as all good friends should. Our current war against Iraq is with blatant disregard for the wishes of our allies (except Tony Blair, who, fwiw, is going against the will of his citizens).

Exoticbro brings up 9/11. I thought everyone in the world now finally knew that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or what happened on 9/11. Guess not. Iraq is/was the most secular country in the middle east. It is not a radical muslim state. As previously mentioned, I have no problems with our stated goal of going after Al Qaeda. In fact, I wish we weren't so distracted by Iraq and were doing more on that front. I also wish the Bush family had a weaker relationship to the Saudis (including the "good" part of Bin Laden's family) and were willing to go after them for their support of terrorism and breeding of the very people who actually committed the murders on 9/11.

Those are the people we should be going after. I'm sure they are quite happy we are in Iraq, pissing off more people and making their recruiting easier.

And Kds, I'm not sure a show of force, even if it was directed against the right target (which it currently isn't), is going to be effective in stopping terrorists who are willing to die for their cause. What can we possibly make them afraid of? One has to take a different approach with such people. Part of that approach is seeking them out and killing actual operatives. Another part is stopping their funding, which means taking on the Saudis, which Bush's father surely won't allow him to do. Another part may be an intellectual approach of counter propoganda and education so that potential recruits would know the true story of American values and not the warped sense they get from their leaders. But it seems obvious that taking over Iraq isn't much of a strategy to stop terrorism.

96ImpalaSS, I think the problem lies in your definition of "american" and "anti-american". In my view, it would be down right anti-american to demand that there be only one united "american" viewpoint. (I also haven't heard any stars say they hate America or hate the flag or any of that!! They simply express their distaste for some of the actions of our current government. Nothing could be more American than to do so.

 

Gee...I just want to have some kick Tim Robbin's ass because I don't like his looks or his acting. I didn't know he was an idiot as well. As far as fighting terrorism, pacifiscm is so futile as to actually, litterally be idiotic. What did we do to get the Twin Towers attacked. Too prosperous? I know why the rest of the world for the most parts hates us and I couldn't care less. F-em.

 

Who was talking about that? For the record, I am not advocating what Rudy calls "pacifiscm". I just don't think one should go around picking fights. If attacked, I can't really say I disagree with a little ass kicking: thus my take on al qaeda and the saudis. I just don't think Iraq falls into that category.

 

I'm having my own conversation here and I wish I would just stay out of it. I only make myself mad. Pass the chips.

 

You know everyone, Saddam is responsible for 9/11 .

How's this for a butterfly effect? our ambassador in 1990 over there, April $%#$%#%$# (forget the name), it is reported, miscommunicated what our reaction might be if hussein were to invade kuwait. So saddam invades, we go over there to repel him. One of the troops sent there gets changed by the war and comes back and commits the oklohoma city bombing. We station our troops in saudi arabia the sacred muslim holy land to contain saddam. This pisses off a fanatical misfit named bin laden. Bin laden's al qaeda responds with 9/11, we attack afghanistan, we attack iraq to finish the job of gulf war 1.
All of this, which has affected most every life on this planet and those that come along or don't come along in the future from a nice cordial conversation over tea 14 years ago. But the final responsibility lies with saddam acting upon that conversation.
Oh and that cordial conversation also led to this heated conversation.
T

 

You are truly stupid.

Al Quada declared war on us. Fanatic mulsims declared war on us. Palestinian freedom groups have declared war on us, and Saddam supported them.

Italy did NOT declare war on us, yet we attacked them. And, hmmm, so what if Germany declared war? What threat were they to us, truly? In your opinion, and the rest of the Bush haters around here, Saddam was no threat, yet we attacked. Well, Germany was NO THREAT in all honesty - Hitler did not have the resources to invade Russia, conquer Europe, bomb London, AND engage in war HALF WAY ACROSS THE WORLD AT THE SAME TIME. His threat was an idle threat, right? I mean, the same logic oughtta apply to Hitler as does to Saddam, right?

And as for the blatant disrespect for our allies, as Bush said in his State of the Union Address, we do NOT NEED A PERMISSION SLIP from France, Germany, and Russia to maintain our safety.

And you know what? I insult you, and attack you, and call you out because IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. Even if I came at you with a nice, polite and intelligent argument, you'd still live in your smugly superior world of "Live and Let Live" bullsh!t. Someone needs to get into your fat face and SCREAM THE TRUTH TO YOU, because while you may not listen, at least it'll hurt your ears, which for me is more than enough.

Regardless, it just makes me feel good to yell at retards like you. Yeah, you can have your opinion, and that's fine and all, but there is a reason why you, and no one like you, is not in charge of a superpower. It takes balls and courage, not some bloated ego created from a false sense of a highly-evolved intellect and sense of "love" for mankind.

Oh, and you mentioned earlier that in the 40's and during WWII, our country was "united". Wrong, buddy. I'll let either a history book or racerx fill you in on the details.

 

As of now, that is absolutely unproven and is perhaps the falacy behind your whole argument. If you realized it wasn't true and that Iraq was the wrong target, then our viewpoints wouldn't be so different as I'm ok with attacking Al Qaeda themselves (and would even throw in something about Saudi Arabia for good measure).

As for your attitude, I'd like to meet you someday so I could either respond when you take a swing at me, or buy you a beer. Your choice. Though I'm quite capable of handling either situation, I'd prefer the beer. But maybe you'll choose to swing and prove your point that some people will refuse to play nice even when others are attempting to treat them nicely and with respect. I believe such people to be rare, but perhaps you'll be one of them.

-Slim

 

Saddam gave $25k to the families of suicide bombers, no?


And your last paragraph makes me laugh. First of all, if you want me to take a swing, insult my sister or spit on me. Otherwise, it ain't worth the lawsuit. You seem like an idiot, but I wouldn't treat you like an idiot if I met you in person, because the life we lead online is seldom anything like the life we lead offline. I'm sure you could handle either situation, but why even bring that up?

 

Palestinian bombers. Not Al Qaeda. Equally despicable folks, sure, but we weren't asked to support this war because of what was happening in Israel.

I don't know. Perhaps I was just a bit steamed that someone was calling me a ****ing idiot and an *******. It's not something that has happened often and I reacted poorly. Perhaps I assumed such person was also prone to other inappropriate behavior like taking a swing at me. I'm glad to hear that it is just rhetoric for you - it is for me as well. The offer of a beer still stands. I think we've said enough now.

 

>As far as Germany in WWII, it was inevitable in my opinion. We were nearly waging a soft war already, running supplies to the British, confronting German blockades.

Short histories here. In WW1 what was the immediate, compelling interest forcing us to go and kick the Kaiser's @ss? But it was the right thing to do...

Inevitability be d@mned, we should do what we believe is right. It's an American tradition, born in the fight for freedom. And we are right to do it. Period.

"I have sworn an oath upon the altar of God to oppose tyranny wherever it exists." - Thomas Jefferson

 

That story is so old and discounted...please.

 

I say we attack Canada!

 

Well, it is primarily rhetoric for me, and I'd be happy to have a ber with ya.