Check out this signature....

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,282
I see, so attacking the U.S in a deeply tedious fashion at every opportunity is O.K, but standing up for the U.S and the war in Iraq is offensive? Buh huh?

Double standards rule O.K!
 

Driwen

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
932
Bodhi said:
I see, so attacking the U.S in a deeply tedious fashion at every opportunity is O.K, but standing up for the U.S and the war in Iraq is offensive? Buh huh?

Double standards rule O.K!

WTF? the maker of the signature is just completly clueless??
First Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on the US and second no one said actually anything about the war in Iraq.
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,282
The "offensive" signature had everything to do with the war in Iraq. I'll assume reading between the lines isn't one of your fortés. Well, that and objective thought.
 

Driwen

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
932
Bodhi said:
The "offensive" signature had everything to do with the war in Iraq. I'll assume reading between the lines isn't one of your fortés. Well, that and objective thought.

you can find the signature stupid and still be pro war Iraq or not be anti american. For one France has a higher GNP than the signature says. War didnt solve the problem with the nazi's it gave a chance to solve it, but that is more or less semantics.
And assuming the average use of anti american (were everyone who disagrees with what the USA is doing on some subject is anti american) than it isnt scapegoating.

The signature isnt really offensive(imo), but is pretty clueless. And Iraq has never attacked the USA and has most likely never supported Al Qaeda.
 

Turamber

Part of the furniture
Joined
May 15, 2004
Messages
3,558
Saddam came to power because the US funded him - wanting a buffer state to Iran. Just a little history lesson ;)
 

Driwen

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
932
Turamber said:
Saddam came to power because the US funded him - wanting a buffer state to Iran. Just a little history lesson ;)

yeah but the UK did the same 100 years ago, so you cant really preach much about stuff that happened in history :p. (and netherlands did the same).
 

GekuL

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
405
Bodhi has a point, so much anti-american bollocks is posted and no one bats an eye lid because it's almost fashionable to do so.
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
I agree to a certain extent - it seems acceptable to assume that most americans are clueless fat retards, which is clearly just a stereotype. It wouldn't be ok to start listing stereotypes about black/asian/muslim/whatever people as if they were true, so there is a bit of doublestandardry there.

Bush however, is a fucking moron and it's ok to hark on about that to one's hearts content. However after a while it may get a little dull.
 

Driwen

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
932
GekuL said:
Bodhi has a point, so much anti-american bollocks is posted and no one bats an eye lid because it's almost fashionable to do so.

except that the first post wasnt about general american bashing, it was the specific signature which was dumb and it still is(imo).
 

GekuL

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
405
Do you think someone would have gone to the trouble of making a new thread if it was an equally ignorant anti-american signature? I don't think so.
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,282
Driwen said:
except that the first post wasnt about general american bashing, it was the specific signature which was dumb and it still is(imo).
It was about someone standing up against the typical rabid frothy mouthed American bashing that sadly seems to define the internet these days. If you can't see this you are just as retarded as you deem the original signature writer to be. I personally am gutted by the 300 character limit on FH, I wanted the whole lot in my sig.
 

Driwen

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
932
Bodhi said:
It was about someone standing up against the typical rabid frothy mouthed American bashing that sadly seems to define the internet these days. If you can't see this you are just as retarded as you deem the original signature writer to be. I personally am gutted by the 300 character limit on FH, I wanted the whole lot in my sig.

off course spouting out nonsense is the best way to defend against american bashing, by behaving the way the american bashers think all of them do...

and gekul i guess thats true. However just because we dont think its fun to see a stupid signature off someone else, doesnt necesarrily make it american bashing.
 

Stazbumpa

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 25, 2003
Messages
469
mank said:
I suspect this person also believes the USA saved Europe from the evil Nazi's and that without them we'd have lost the war.


Erm... the USA provided the massed manpower needed to retake Europe. Britain and Canada couldn't do it alone, and neither could the USA without Britain and Canada. Why do you think Churchill was so pleased that Japan bombed Pearl Harbour?
So yeah, they helped save Europe. Which is why France hates both us and America and is best mates with Germany.
You can forgive an injustice against you, but you can never forgive someone for saving you when you failed to save yourself.

The sig in question makes a valid point in my opinion. The American Civil War was basically about ideals, one of which was all for slavery. They lost, so slavery ended. War definately defeated the Nazi's, how else could Hitler have been pushed out of Europe. Somehow I dont think negotiations would've worked on that guy.

Turamber said:
Saddam came to power because the US funded him - wanting a buffer state to Iran. Just a little history lesson

And this means what precisely? America put him in power maybe, dont forget Saddam was a pillar of normality at the time compared to Ayatollah Khomenie's ravings next door in Iran, but that says to me that they should then step in when things go bad. And things did indeed go bad, and so America stepped in, although several years too late tbh.

The ugly truth people is that war sucks ass, but is a required part of the world, because without the threat of doom and destruction nobody would pay any bloody attention whatsoever.
Why do you think the UN is so fucking useless? A shining opportunity was given to them to avoid Gulf War 2 by showing solidarity and drawing the line with Saddam.
But the US hating countries stepped in and got on their high bloody horses and ruined everything. The UN is split down the middle, the resolution falls apart, Saddam laughs his tits off and the US and Britain go to war and then get denounced for actually trying to do something.

The sig that we are all arguing about may not be perfectly worded or put, but it does raise an interesting point or two. Not trying to flame anyone, just giving my tuppence.
 

Turamber

Part of the furniture
Joined
May 15, 2004
Messages
3,558
I have American friends, people who are literate, thoughtful, intelligent and aware of what is happening in the world around them. But then you have Americans, indeed a lot of Americans, who have viewpoints mirrored by the signature I quoted. That one such ignorant "red neck" American is sitting in the White House is, I think, very worrying.

That's not "American bashing", that is being a realist in a world that has turned quite upside down. There was an excellent quote from Bush on Freddyhouse the other day ... how free countries don't force their will on other countries and don't invade other countries. By that definition is America a free country?

My little history lesson was simply a reminder that many of the problems the West has to face up to are problems of our own making. I am a student of Byzantine history (Eastern Roman Empire that continued after the fall of Rome until finally falling to the Turks in 1453) and, from their 1,100 years of history, I will admit this is not a new problem. In shortsightedly trying to 'solve' a problem like Iran the seeds of a greater and more serious threat are sowed for the future.

But the danger of this is even greater when it's politicians, with a view to their re-election and not some great moral outlook, that pull the strings. And when those politicians are as clueless and reprehensible in their world view then it's truly worrying what lies in store for the years ahead.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,206
Turamber said:
Saddam came to power because the US funded him - wanting a buffer state to Iran. Just a little history lesson ;)

AFAIK there is no proof of that. Saddam rose to power because he was a thug, an assassin, and politically motivated. There is some evidence of him being in contact with the CIA during a period of exile, while in Syria, but nothing more than that.

Just a little history lesson.
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
Where's Xane to jump in with all the "facts" in an incredibly patronising and condescending tone to set us all straight!

How I miss him.
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,282
I miss your man boobs.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom