image stats
date added
previous votes
Stop the tyranny of the US and Great Britain
1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
Stop the tyranny of the US and Great Britain

"a person wearing a mask"

Rate image:
[ | | ]
[ | ]
Comments for: Stop the tyranny of the US and Great Britain
quasi Report This Comment
Date: November 19, 2006 07:16PM

You have no idea what tyranny really is. Read your history books, look at the Islamic fundamentalist governments & communist governments that are around now and hope it never happens to you. A site like this would not even exist in those places and disagreement with those governments often means imprisonment, torture, & death for their people. You should be thankful for the US and Britain or you'd probably be saying zeig heil right now while being afraid of speaking your true opinion.
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: November 19, 2006 10:23PM

Quasi ... must mean you "quasi" use your brain .. Nah that would be wrong too

The fact is that England and the US are doing exactly what the poster says.

Both countries have moved their borders to include the rest of the world in an attempt to tyrannize militarily weak countries that do not bow to their whims.

The founding fathers thought that government was a dangerous thing. Specifically how an individual or small group of people could usurp the power of the people they govern.

George Bush and his bitch Tony Blair have usurped the power of the people they govern. They have changed the law or disregard the law to carry out their foolish ideas of foreign policy.
Placelowerplace Report This Comment
Date: November 19, 2006 10:53PM

Quasi is trying to point out the bigger picture, not a political regime in pressent power. People that live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Sorry if this offends anyone, but really why is every one so angry with one another. why? it gets us no where.
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: November 19, 2006 11:15PM

Stop anonymous theater patrons.
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: November 19, 2006 11:19PM

aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: November 19, 2006 11:44PM


The bigger picture? Nah ... He attempted to evade the big picture by bringing up 1 instance where the US and Britain had it right.

Changing the constitution to carryout poorly thought out actions is the big picture. It only takes a few years of losing your discipline to have the country lose the very reason it was founded. Bush has taken the US to that precipice rather than maintain dicipline.

But what would Bush know about dicipline?

What would Bush know about succeeding on his own merit?

He doesn't.
quasi Report This Comment
Date: November 20, 2006 02:26AM

Whether or not Bush and Blair acted maliciously, irresponsibly, or made a mistake based on faulty but believable intelligence during a time of high anxiety for the American and British people, the people in the US and Britain are still holding elections and, by the way, the Iraquis now have an opportunity to determine their own destinies by going to the poles if their violent factions will stop THEIR tyrany. The American and British systems of government provide for a changing of those in power to prevent tyrany, and while no government is perfect this system is the best anyone has come up with and works very well. We are not being gassed or tortured by the thousands by our leaders nor are we blowing each other up by the score in the street on a daily basis, and we fought a short war against a tyrannical government which freed the Iraqi people to have the free society that we have if they will only let themselves be free. If I saw a man down my street beating and killing his own family I would do whatever I could to stop it, any decent person would, so what is so different about stopping Saddam Hussein from harming his own people and giving them freedom in the process?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20/11/2006 02:27AM by quasi.
Dawgfart Report This Comment
Date: November 20, 2006 03:24AM

there was nothing wrong with stopping saddam quasi, but if you honestly believe that the united states went to war with iraq simply to bring democracy to that particular region of the world, then you are a bigger fool than you have been given credit for.The only people who have anything to gain from the war in iraq are the stock holders of KELLOG, BROWN AND ROOT{KBR} as well as the stockholders of HALLIBURTON.The iraqi people are not ready for democracy, they never have been, and never will be. a recent poll shows that over 70% of the iraqi people want the U.S. Army out of iraq, and i for one, belive that we should pull out, now, with what little dignity this country has left after loseing our 2nd battle that we should never have been involved in, vietnam was the first.This war was about oil, pure and simple, it was a BIG DICK contest between the BUSH family, and the hussein family, and neither side has won, we can safely say that none of these three men have penis's.....P.S...dose anyone besides myself find it odd that BUSH and CHENEY as well as the royal family of SAUDI ARABIA hold stock in the afore mentioned companies?
quasi Report This Comment
Date: November 20, 2006 11:06AM

No I don't think we went to war just to bring democracy to that part of the world, we went to war because there was a percieved threat whether that perception was correct or not. The opportunity for the Iraqi people to have democracy is a fortunate byproduct of that war, an opportunity that I think the average Iraqi is probably grateful for but afraid to truly take advantage of because of violent radicals who are now substituting their own tyrany for that of Saddam Hussein. Yes, it is possible that greed was involved in the decision to go to war but I don't think so because Bush, Cheney & the cabinet are not so foolish to put this nation at war for any personal gain other than to stop a potential attack by Saddam Hussein's government, something that government has a history of. Bush and his people may not be the smartest or the best of people but why is it so hard to believe they were acting with good intentions when we went to war, just as most of us did. Now that the law of unforseen circumstances has kicked in everyone wants to point figures and make silly accusations - why don't we finish what we started. One thing Americans have become to used to and expect all the time is instant gratification but in war there is seldom a quick resolution - let's act like grownups now and finish a job we were mostly OK with starting but don't want to finish because it wasn't over in five minutes (but would have been if the US were fighting anything but a clean war where we want to protect innocents as much as possible).
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: November 21, 2006 05:52AM

Quasi ... stop talking and do a lot more reading and listening.

Saddam was not torturing his people in mass the way he was accused.

The Sunni and Shia groups that are currently fighting the civil war, that the US military is trying to referee in Iraq, were the ones responsible for the vast majority of the disappearances of people in Iraq during Saddam's rule.

A clue to this fact is that this practice of abducting 50 to 100 people and taking them away and killing them is still going on with the US military standing there with guns. The US military is not making a dent in stopping the violence between these waring groups.

The worst part of Saddam's recent conviction is that he was convicted ex post facto. He was convicted with new iraqi laws that did not apply to actions in 1988 when saddam was accused of mass killings. The law in Iraq at that time allowed these actions.

The world court was the only court that has jurisdiction to try Saddam. The same court that was trying Milosevic. But the US knew Saddam would not be found guilty in that court. They would not be prejudiced like the shia and kurd judges on the Iraqi court.

The real reason the Bush administration went into Iraq was multifold.

1) Baby Bush could avenge the death threat on his father's life.

2) Cheney convinced Bush that letting KBR (Halliburton) get sole source contracts in the billions to provide overpriced services and products to Iraq at the expense of the american taxpayer that the american economy would pick up and line his friends pockets. What a scam!

3) The last major reason is that US military domination of Iraq would intimidate Iran from pursuing nuclear energy and subsequently maybe nuclear weapons in 30 years.

What a puny plan.

Every one of these reasons shows a lack of experience that leads to disastrous results for the world as well as the US in the future.

Saddam was never a threat according CIA, DIA analysts.

Only to Cheney and "Yes man" George Tennet was Saddam a threat. A lie.

Funny how the same assholes that told LBJ to lie about Vietnam are the same assholes getting W to lie about Iraq. It's all they know how to do.
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: November 21, 2006 09:41PM

quasi Report This Comment
Date: November 22, 2006 01:52AM

What an amazing psychic ability you guys have! You can read peoples' minds, see "what evil lurks in the hearts of men" just like the Shadow! Who needs rational thinking and a belief that our leaders might just have something other than their own greed in mind when you can actually read those minds? You know that that monster Bush thinks he can avenge his daddy and make billions of dollars in the process with the whole world watching his every move. Remarkable! There's no fooling you. You're heros!

And thanks for pointing out what a great guy Saddam is, Beast. You've shown that it's OK that he hurt and killed thousands of Kurds and others because he made laws that said it was OK. Geez, what was I thinking? And, oh yeah, why bother even trying to stop the bloodshed between the Sunni and Shia, after all, they'll never be able to do anything else and they're the ones who were really responsible for all that bad stuff before anyway.

Gosh I'm glad you straightened me out. You're a national treasure.

All hail the all seeing, all knowing aDCBeast and Dawgfart.

What am I thinking now, gang?
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: November 22, 2006 11:54PM

I'm thinkin' that 2 of those chocolate mousse in the fridge ain't gonna make it more than 5 or 6 minutes from this exact time.........set your clocks......NOW!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22/11/2006 11:55PM by fossil_digger.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: November 22, 2006 11:56PM

I'm thinkin' that 2 of those chocolate mousse in the fridge aren't gonna make it more than 5 or 6 minutes from this exact time.........set your clocks......NOW!
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: November 25, 2006 01:44AM

Quasi .... proving you should do more reading and listening

I love your shoot the messenger attack. Still in 3rd grade?

Bush himself said one of the reasons he went after Saddam was due to the threat on his father's life. This one has been well publicized. Nice going moron.

Many people in congress believe Cheney misused his position as VP to line the pockets of his friends. This has been supported by the FACTS. Sole source contracts to companies you used to work for, who you may still work for, and who you may work for in the future, are a conflict of interest. It also violates congressional law for such contracts.

Bush, Cheney, Rice, and various US military leaders have all stated publicly that the invasion of Iraq would make Iran think about pursuing nuclear weapons.

You are a really lame Bush apologist. No one needed to be psychic to say what we have about the Bush admin. It's all been said by Bush himself.

Maybe you should hook up with shaDEz and hit the bowl because you are not blessed with any intellectual skills.
quasi Report This Comment
Date: November 25, 2006 12:52PM

Actually, this whole exchange began because the US and Britain were accused of tyranny, and when someone attacks my nation and my nation's closest ally I don't care for it. Bush may represent the US, and may sometimes do that poorly, but Bush is not the US though that's what many believe. I started out defending my nation and you turned it into a debate about Bush & Cheney.

I'm no fan of Bush & most of the people in his administration but I think he was the best option when he was elected. Fortunately, the American people have the ability to change their leadership periodically which is what I pointed out originally - that is not tyranny.

But while Bush is not the greatest of leaders, I do believe he and his advisors were and are at least smart enough to begin a war with things other than personal gain as their reasons. In your previous posting you made Bush avenging his daddy into the number one of the top three reasons he took us to war but now you've relegated it back down to "one of the reasons." I'm sure he has thought about that, who wouldn't, and it could be one of his reasons, but I think he's man enough to make it one of the smallest of reasons when there is so much at stake for so many other people - I don't think he's that selfish or foolish whether I really like the man or not.

As far as Cheney lining his & his friends pockets from government contracts, that is quite possible but I don't believe it as a reason for going to war because, again, I think the administration is better than that. He may make money from this war but though I reeeally don't care for the guy I don't think that was his objective. I work in a place that supplies plumbing products to contractors. If I need something done at my house, I call one of those contractors I do business with and the company I work for makes money from that contracter so I can get a paycheck. Do I call that contractor because he will be providing my company and me with a profit? No, I call him because having done business with him I know he knows how to do the job and that's who I want working on my house.

And I definitely don't have a problem with making Iran think really hard about carrying on a nuclear weapons program. Nuclear weapons are a dangerous thing in anyone's hands, even America's, and more nuclear weapons, especially in the hands of a group of people who think of most of the human race as infidels who should be wiped (or burned) from the face of the earth, just makes the world a more dangerous place. I don't think for one second that the majority of Iranians (or North Koreans for that matter) would choose to use those weapons but the likelyhood of those weapons getting into the hands of someone who wouldn't hesitate to use them would be far greater than it is now.

Why do I think we went to war in Iraq?
I think our administration and congress asked itself the following questions.

What if someone had invaded Nazi Germany in late 1938 or early 1939 before the blitzkrieg began and so many millions upon millions lost there lives?

What if Hitler or Hirohito had had the A-bomb?

And as far as that war where the US and Britain "had it right" - what if we waged war in Iraq the way we did in Europe? It would have long been over as everyone wishes it was, and most of the insurgents would be wiped out or afraid to do anything, but so would a lot more innocent people. I wouldn't say we were wrong in WWII, but we waited too long to start which made it far too bloody to wage. We're all just very fortunate that the allies prevailled in a cause that was just. It was waiting for the proof that it was absolutely just that caused it to be a world war. Is that a mistake we want to make again?

PS - It was asked if I'm still in third grade. No, I'm not, and it seems to me that calling someone a moron or a fool is more along the lines of third grade behavior even if that person is a moron or fool, which I am not either.
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: November 26, 2006 06:23AM

Quasi ... you really are a moron.

the congress asked themselves if Saddam was like Hitler ? Come on. No one on the planet did that. Those comparisons test the limits of reason. If you belived it then I feel sorry for you. You lack the intellectual skillz to sift through the BS.

CIA and DIA analysts knew Saddam did not have WMDs.

"Curveball" was a known liar to the entire world yet the Bush admin went with his story. a story from a convict. We don't believe convicts in the US. Why would the Bush admin believe them now? hmmmmmm...They didn't. It fit their plan to carry out this dumb plan in Iraq.

quasi .. you obviously think everyone has the mundane boring life you do. no one lives in DC and is interacting with the government nitwits you see on TV.

come to DC. I'll embarrass you and anyone you want to bring.

Stop sucking the Bush admin cock. They make Clinton look like a choir boy.

You have proven to be completely clueless. Get off the reservation.

Quasi ... attacking the people who are providing the truth is what makes you a 3rd grader.
quasi Report This Comment
Date: November 27, 2006 12:41AM

I guess you weren't paying attention, Beast. I didn't attack anyone, I defended against an attack against my nation that accused it of something it has strived to fight against. You, on the other hand, jumped into the discussion with an immeadiate sophomoric "quasi" attack on me personally. You claim that you're more intelligent but name calling is the refuge of a small mind.

But I learned today what a piece of work you really are when I came accross some words you wrote this past July. Your sole purpose is to bash everyone you can, starting with the folks in Washington then working your way down. You don't really care about this country or the people in it, you just want to agitate, to cause trouble, to get attention like a spoiled child.

Here's what you said in July. "What a fucking joke. the average american has an 11th grade education. that means most americans have not graduated HS. LOL! yet they are allowed to vote and think their opinion means shit. They can barely find their asshole with a funnel yet they think they are an expert on foreign affairs like Fossil_Crapper"

Other than the quotation marks, the the punctuation and lack of capital letters are yours, so I wonder what grade you were in when you dropped out.

Sounds to me as though you'd be perfectly happy with a tyrannical dictatorship where the citizens have no rights. Where the hell are you from, anyway? You seem to like the government and the people here so little, you can't be an American, or at least shouldn't be happy or claim to be one. Do you even have any values or morals? Don't bother answering, I've heard enough of your self serving bullshit.
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: November 27, 2006 05:22AM

quasi .. you have confirmed you are a dumbass.

another strawman argument ? Look it up. Avoid committing this fallacy again.

"Sounds to me as though you'd be perfectly happy with a tyrannical dictatorship where the citizens have no rights."

This is a strawman argument. I never supported this idea. ever.

I stated a fact that morons with an 11th grade education think they are experts in foreign affairs.

and to the contrary of your lame attempts at a strawman argument, I fully support americans becoming better educated on the whole. But at the current time they are not. Thus leaving them at a loss when seeing through the lies of their politicians to END tyranny.

Hmmmmmmmmmm ... looks like I just smashed your strawman.

But you knew this because I have done so before.

I'll get you a mirror so your can project your own BS to the person who really deserves it. Yourself!
alterego Report This Comment
Date: December 12, 2006 10:14AM

quasi, you're new (ish) here so here's some advice.
Unless of course you enjoy it, then go for your life.
smileys with beer
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 16, 2006 01:54AM

I got your tyranny Beastsmiling bouncing smiley