For those of you against the war....
08-31-2003 | 07:05 PM
#201
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: 'Fleet
Oh and nice smilie depicting "Death to Israel".
Do you really think that makes me take what you say seriously?
08-31-2003 | 07:35 PM
#202
A little chin music
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 0
From: Cleveland, Ohio - Rock 'n Roll capitol of the World
I've come to the conclusion that since the only way some people will ever hear the true voice of reason is to pipe Rush Limbaugh in to every Best Buy. I guarantee many of you here have not given the other side of politics a chance. You'd be afraid to loose your emotional touch to your intellect. I still have yet to read Derellection of Duty, but I intend to. And from what I've heard, one read of the book will make even Monica Lewinsky think differently of Clinton.
08-31-2003 | 07:40 PM
#203
lots and lots of fail
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,004
Likes: 1
From: Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeetroit
Originally posted by fastball
I still have yet to read Derellection of Duty, but I intend to. And from what I've heard, one read of the book will make even Monica Lewinsky think differently of Clinton.
I still have yet to read Derellection of Duty, but I intend to. And from what I've heard, one read of the book will make even Monica Lewinsky think differently of Clinton.
like brainwashing from you and your kind is any better? :P
09-01-2003 | 10:43 AM
#208
I need sleep...
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by Sticky_D
Your profile describes you as a "Computer Dork". I don't think I can take a dork seriously. They don't seem to be the most upstanding US citizens. Infact, a recent Zogby poll showed that 72% of Americans think that Dorks are one of the lowest forms of life.
Your profile describes you as a "Computer Dork". I don't think I can take a dork seriously. They don't seem to be the most upstanding US citizens. Infact, a recent Zogby poll showed that 72% of Americans think that Dorks are one of the lowest forms of life.
09-01-2003 | 11:16 AM
#209
A little chin music
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 0
From: Cleveland, Ohio - Rock 'n Roll capitol of the World
Originally posted by Sticky_D
I sure hope thats sarcasm.
I sure hope thats sarcasm.
09-01-2003 | 02:57 PM
#210
Thread Starter
my bum is on the swedish!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
I got a surprize reading thursdays paper....
front page, top right corner "Allies may have been duped on weapons"
reading the article made alot of things make sense rather quickly.
turns out alot of the british intelligence was sourced from Iraqi defectors. Common knowledge. What I didn't know was that there's a company that brings in defectors to england. This company is headed by the man in charge of the provicanal iraqi government, Ahmed Chalabi, and is the agreed successor of Saddam. All of this is mentioned in the article, sourced from an LA Times writer.
things really make sense now.....
now, on with the fun... enjoy the read
well, part one, anyways
so what makes your "facts" better than our "facts"?
you must not be reading hard enough. I've seen plenty.
thats a drum I've been beating for a few pages now. Thanks for finally catching up :goodjob:
yeah, and ignore the issues....
wow, you have so much to say about this.....
thank you for your random agreement. Now, when you have something to ADD to the argument, maybe then you should post.
I've read enough to know its not like they're Mormans over there.
I'm not saying every single person overseas/in foreign land is a bad person doing bad things. But I sure as hell can't say they're all good.
military messes with you. Makes men abuse their wives. Makes air force academy recruites rape the females (what was the %, something like 8% of all females there?)
ha! about as much as the french do.
because we buy their shit
the north does not.
the south does, but considering we saved their sweet asses (kinda)....
I'll agree more with the latter part of this statement.
I love these :chuckles:
too bad sxe took the words out of my mouth
so was the money
yeah, ignorant stereotypes ARE bad.... things like "stupid liberal bullshit", "halftruths", "crap"....
what else did you call my opening statment? I think it sums it up.
I'm not trying to anger people. I'm just speaking my mind. Like I've said time and time again, no one's making you post here. There's plenty of other threads, and GASP! you can start your own "why the Iraqi war is justified" thread and, you know what? I won't even post in it, just to hold my side of the bargin.<BR>
are you serious? Learn to quote....
I wouldn't say long-winded. Sure, I have a tendency to rant, but at least I'm not talking total bullshit, unlike some people.....
oh, boo hoo. can't take the heat? get out of the kitchen.
wow, this statement alone is reason enough for me to deem you a complete moron. Lets see here, you want to know what I read and where I get my info?
books
Holy War, Inc.
The Pentigon Wars
Enders Game
Steal This Book
Most of the Clancey series
radio, tv, and film
BBC radio
CNN
Bowling For Columbine
many, many war movies, from apocolyes now and full metal jacket to patton and saving private ryan.
news paper, magazines, internet
NY times
San Antonio Express News (my local paper)
yahoo news
The Atlantic Monthly (magazine)
Newsweek
do you see disney or nickealodean up there? Oh yeah, I'm not talking about cartoons, slime, and hiphop music. Fucking moron....
wow, you're capable of truth. Too bad this is your only credible statement.
I take that last statement back. again, you're a fucking moron. Thanks for taking me out of context. But what about the two maries in Guam who raped the young native? Or the scores of veitnamese who were raped while america raped the region?
[/QUOTE]
And what VDs are they bringing home so I will be well informed when I need to go get treatment when it finally comes around to me. [/QUOTE]
that was more for emphisis, but hey, whatever.
but if you want me to take this further, I was reading some advice article about a woman complaing about her enlisted husband bringing something home with him, so I'm not wrong, either.
could be....
yeah, and that has alot to do with the discussion. About as much as bill cliton and blowjobs...
things can go alot of places in 3 or 4 years. Especially if the NEVER existed.
thats one of them
even humans can be wrong. Read the opening statement to fully grasp this.
wow, and people NEVER lie....
because the media keeps saying so much shit that the facts get disorted, like how half the country things Iraq was in on 9-11
true friends and allies? You mean Britain? They're our bitch.
like I said, people can be misled by the media.
and aren't you the same guy who favors the electoral college because the country is full of idiots?
known WMD? where are they?
until they surface, you have no point to aruge that they exist. You're just beating a dead horse.
the only real thread Iraq had to us was only in our interests, particularly Isreal. Saddam didn't particularly care for them.
not just democrats argue this. There are these people called Critics, who will argue anything.
that would be a nicer situation to be in than going in and NOT finding anything. At least in your hypothetical situayion, we don't look so bad. But whatever.
concurance
also, something to add was that in the dossier, it said there was a 45 minute prep time need to launch from Iraq. How can you prep missles in 45 minutes when 120k troops can't find them in 6 months?
concurance
the funny thing about this, bush used that quote.... but he said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..... Well, you won't fool me twice."
fucking hick....
do you really think small countries like Iraq keep as vigorous records as countries like america?
concurance
well, considering all the contriversy surrounding the british "unintelligence," I'll have to side with beleive sticky d over the mi5.
have you not been reading the paper or watching/listening to the news?
well, how many times do we have to bring up "uh oh, they're not there."?
how many times do you have to ignore our very good facts?
how many people must die before there's no more terrorists?
how much money is in dubya's pocket because of this war?
don't blame him. Both isreal and palistine have some major issues. Neither one of them is any better.
plus, how many wars did israel start in the name of land? Quite a few....
you notice the "liberals" are the only ones who see any points?
otherwise, I'll concur
and concur
but you can say the same thing about the 3000 people who died sept 11th.
:chuckles: you need to post more often.
I think the reason he's so pro-war is because he's affraid some terrorist will inturupt his dork life. Thats why alot of people are for the war. They don't want to die, they don't want to be forced to change, they don't want this this and that, but they do want all this.
front page, top right corner "Allies may have been duped on weapons"
reading the article made alot of things make sense rather quickly.
turns out alot of the british intelligence was sourced from Iraqi defectors. Common knowledge. What I didn't know was that there's a company that brings in defectors to england. This company is headed by the man in charge of the provicanal iraqi government, Ahmed Chalabi, and is the agreed successor of Saddam. All of this is mentioned in the article, sourced from an LA Times writer.
things really make sense now.....
now, on with the fun... enjoy the read
well, part one, anyways
Originally posted by DVPGSR
I have really come to the conclusion that no matter what is posted, no mater how hard a fact it is, that fact will be either twisted so that it may be used in a liberal point of view or discredited so as not to be used at all.
I have really come to the conclusion that no matter what is posted, no mater how hard a fact it is, that fact will be either twisted so that it may be used in a liberal point of view or discredited so as not to be used at all.
I have not seen anything of sound reasoning be posted by a liberal here...
I am sure they can say the same for us Conservatives...so atleast we agree on something.
Somebody please lock this thread now!!
Originally posted by FocuzDave
:werd:
:werd:
thank you for your random agreement. Now, when you have something to ADD to the argument, maybe then you should post.
Originally posted by /^Blackmagik^\
now, my question to you about this statement is, have you ever been a soldier in a foreign land? do you know first hand that this is all that soldiers overseas do in their spare time?
now, my question to you about this statement is, have you ever been a soldier in a foreign land? do you know first hand that this is all that soldiers overseas do in their spare time?
I'm not saying every single person overseas/in foreign land is a bad person doing bad things. But I sure as hell can't say they're all good.
military messes with you. Makes men abuse their wives. Makes air force academy recruites rape the females (what was the %, something like 8% of all females there?)
i didn't think so. actually the germans love us.
the japanese love us.
the koreans love us.
the south does, but considering we saved their sweet asses (kinda)....
do you know why that is? they understand that we are there to protect them from their enemies as well as our own and are a staple part of their economy as well.
these countries that we have permanent bases in are called our allies:
al·ly ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-l, l)
v. al·lied, al·ly·ing, al·lies
v. tr.
To place in a friendly association, as by treaty: Italy allied itself with Germany during World War II.
To unite or connect in a personal relationship, as in friendship or marriage.
al·ly ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-l, l)
v. al·lied, al·ly·ing, al·lies
v. tr.
To place in a friendly association, as by treaty: Italy allied itself with Germany during World War II.
To unite or connect in a personal relationship, as in friendship or marriage.
too bad sxe took the words out of my mouth
Originally posted by sxecrow
Kinda like Saudi Arabia ... oh. Wait. Sept 11th hijackers were from there.
Some ally.
Kinda like Saudi Arabia ... oh. Wait. Sept 11th hijackers were from there.
Some ally.
this forum is no place for ignorant stereotypes. this discussion wasn't too bad until you started calling names.
what else did you call my opening statment? I think it sums it up.
you may think it's effective, but it's not. angering people just makes them defensive and less likely to see your point of view.
Originally posted by LiLRexen
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 18secFerio
the problem with conservatives veiwpoints on the matter of occupation is that just about every country has american forces in it. So, it can be understandable that the rest of the world doesn't like someone elses forces sitting around there area. Especially on the weekends when drunken soldiers run around raping the locals and getting VD.
here in america, we haven't had to deal with that since the late 1700's. In fact, that was one of the reasons we kicked the british out.
but what do I know, I'm just a dumb liberal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you serious?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 18secFerio
the problem with conservatives veiwpoints on the matter of occupation is that just about every country has american forces in it. So, it can be understandable that the rest of the world doesn't like someone elses forces sitting around there area. Especially on the weekends when drunken soldiers run around raping the locals and getting VD.
here in america, we haven't had to deal with that since the late 1700's. In fact, that was one of the reasons we kicked the british out.
but what do I know, I'm just a dumb liberal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you serious?
I mean, honestly, up until now I could have given your long-winded,
insulting,
liberal views some respect because you probably got the information you base them on from SOME respectable publication..Nickelodeon magazine or Disney Adventures..I don't know. Whatever you read.
books
Holy War, Inc.
The Pentigon Wars
Enders Game
Steal This Book
Most of the Clancey series
radio, tv, and film
BBC radio
CNN
Bowling For Columbine
many, many war movies, from apocolyes now and full metal jacket to patton and saving private ryan.
news paper, magazines, internet
NY times
San Antonio Express News (my local paper)
yahoo news
The Atlantic Monthly (magazine)
Newsweek
do you see disney or nickealodean up there? Oh yeah, I'm not talking about cartoons, slime, and hiphop music. Fucking moron....
We have female troops over in those poor countries we are holding under our imperialistic military rule.
I mean, sure, we spend the work week taxing the crops out of them and terrorizing the children but who are the female troops raping?
[/QUOTE]
And what VDs are they bringing home so I will be well informed when I need to go get treatment when it finally comes around to me. [/QUOTE]
that was more for emphisis, but hey, whatever.
but if you want me to take this further, I was reading some advice article about a woman complaing about her enlisted husband bringing something home with him, so I'm not wrong, either.
Originally posted by DVPGSR
Now I know what the liberals are going to say here...they did not exists in the first place...
Now I know what the liberals are going to say here...they did not exists in the first place...
just like Alger Hiss was not a Communist working for the US Government.
But they did exist and were documented by the UN and Iraq back in 1998 or 1999 before the UN weapons inspectors were kicked out. So where did these weapons go?
things can go alot of places in 3 or 4 years. Especially if the NEVER existed.
And what "questionable evidence" are we talking about here? Is this the same "questionable evidence" that the British government had about Iraq trying to obtain plutonium from Africa?
The same Information that MI5 (British CIA) and Tony Blair insist is accurate and true?
Blair even spoke in front of the House of Commons stating that it was true and legitimate.
and the latest polls have the American public in favor of the war at 63%.
Either way you slice and dice it though the Bush administration was right to lead a coalition of true friends and allies into Iraq.
Like I said above 63% of the American public, a very strong majority, agree.
and aren't you the same guy who favors the electoral college because the country is full of idiots?
Originally posted by DVPGSR
Oh and I would take attacking a country with known WMD over lying about a BJ anyday.
Oh and I would take attacking a country with known WMD over lying about a BJ anyday.
until they surface, you have no point to aruge that they exist. You're just beating a dead horse.
If we had not gone to war and a nuclear dirty bomb went off in NYC and the source of the radioactivity came from Iraq,
the same Democrats that are arguing about the credebility of the WMD and the justification of war
would have been the first to go on the attack and say why didn't we go in and get them when we had a chance?
Originally posted by Sticky_D
3) Iraq destroyed most or all of its arsenal after the Gulf War, unfortunatally with minimal documentatuon, leaving nothing to be found by UN Inspectors except a few long forgotten mustard gas shells in an abandoned wareshouse.
4) Iraq never had Nuclear capibilities, albeit they may have had ambitions and perhaps the knowledge and documentation to do so, they never had the means.
Also, the UN Inspectors weren't kicked out of Iraq, they we're pulled out for their safety by the UN before allied UK and US airstrikes were carried out on Iraqi targets.
And there is much "questionable evidence" The claims that Iraq sought Nuclear material from Niger was based on a poorly forged document.Of course, after this came to light, the british government insisted that they had plenty of, previously unmentioned, other intelligence from foriegn sources that was concrete. Of course, they claimed that they couldnt unveil this evidence, even to the US.
More "questionable evidence" Of course.
My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
- Secretary of State Colin Powell before the United Nations, 2/5/03
The problem is that much of Colin Powell's presentation to the UN relied on information from the British Intelligance Dossier on Iraq: "Iraq - Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation." It was later discovered that most of the dossier was plagerised from an essay written by a California graduate student, Ibrahim al-Marashi. That questionable enough for yah?
3) Iraq destroyed most or all of its arsenal after the Gulf War, unfortunatally with minimal documentatuon, leaving nothing to be found by UN Inspectors except a few long forgotten mustard gas shells in an abandoned wareshouse.
4) Iraq never had Nuclear capibilities, albeit they may have had ambitions and perhaps the knowledge and documentation to do so, they never had the means.
Also, the UN Inspectors weren't kicked out of Iraq, they we're pulled out for their safety by the UN before allied UK and US airstrikes were carried out on Iraqi targets.
And there is much "questionable evidence" The claims that Iraq sought Nuclear material from Niger was based on a poorly forged document.Of course, after this came to light, the british government insisted that they had plenty of, previously unmentioned, other intelligence from foriegn sources that was concrete. Of course, they claimed that they couldnt unveil this evidence, even to the US.
More "questionable evidence" Of course.
My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
- Secretary of State Colin Powell before the United Nations, 2/5/03
The problem is that much of Colin Powell's presentation to the UN relied on information from the British Intelligance Dossier on Iraq: "Iraq - Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation." It was later discovered that most of the dossier was plagerised from an essay written by a California graduate student, Ibrahim al-Marashi. That questionable enough for yah?
also, something to add was that in the dossier, it said there was a 45 minute prep time need to launch from Iraq. How can you prep missles in 45 minutes when 120k troops can't find them in 6 months?
Originally posted by sxecrow
Ok ... the weapons arent there. Lets attack Iraq anyway? How about try and find what happened to them? I mean, you do have a good point there, DVPGSR, I'll give you that. But instead of dragging us into this war that will last years and years (not just fighting, but occupation and rebuilding) when we coulda done some detective work and not stirred the hornets net?
Ok ... the weapons arent there. Lets attack Iraq anyway? How about try and find what happened to them? I mean, you do have a good point there, DVPGSR, I'll give you that. But instead of dragging us into this war that will last years and years (not just fighting, but occupation and rebuilding) when we coulda done some detective work and not stirred the hornets net?
Originally posted by /^Blackmagik^\
well let's think about that. how many times were the inspectors kicked out of iraq? also those same inspectors, up until early 2002 weren't allowed to search the palaces and the bunkers underneath them. i believe the old adage goes &quot;fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.&quot;
well let's think about that. how many times were the inspectors kicked out of iraq? also those same inspectors, up until early 2002 weren't allowed to search the palaces and the bunkers underneath them. i believe the old adage goes &quot;fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.&quot;
fucking hick....
Originally posted by DVPGSR
And there is still no proof that the weapons are not there, nor is there proof as to where they are. The only thing there is proof of is that as of 1998/1999 they were in Iraq and there was a large quantity of them and no record or proof of them being destroyed.
And there is still no proof that the weapons are not there, nor is there proof as to where they are. The only thing there is proof of is that as of 1998/1999 they were in Iraq and there was a large quantity of them and no record or proof of them being destroyed.
Originally posted by Sticky_D
The Washington Post March 16, 2003
"Despite the Bush administration's claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to give Congress or the Pentagon specific information about the amounts of banned weapons or where they are hidden. ... Senior intelligence analysts say they feel caught between the demands from White House, Pentagon and other government policymakers for intelligence that would make the administration's case.
Administration officials, in making the case against Iraq, repeatedly have failed to mention the considerable amount of documented weapons destruction that took place in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. . In that period, under U.N. supervision, Iraq destroyed 817 of 819 proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers and 56 fixed missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical or biological warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives. U.N. inspectors also supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk chemical weapons agents, 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals and 980 pieces of equipment considered key to production of such weapons."
As I recall, Iraq also destroyed a large amount of their Al-Samoud 2 Long range missiles in the weeks before the war.
And you didnt respond to my previous post. Don't you think that that was questionable evidence?
The Washington Post March 16, 2003
"Despite the Bush administration's claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to give Congress or the Pentagon specific information about the amounts of banned weapons or where they are hidden. ... Senior intelligence analysts say they feel caught between the demands from White House, Pentagon and other government policymakers for intelligence that would make the administration's case.
Administration officials, in making the case against Iraq, repeatedly have failed to mention the considerable amount of documented weapons destruction that took place in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. . In that period, under U.N. supervision, Iraq destroyed 817 of 819 proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers and 56 fixed missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical or biological warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives. U.N. inspectors also supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk chemical weapons agents, 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals and 980 pieces of equipment considered key to production of such weapons."
As I recall, Iraq also destroyed a large amount of their Al-Samoud 2 Long range missiles in the weeks before the war.
And you didnt respond to my previous post. Don't you think that that was questionable evidence?
Originally posted by DVPGSR <BR>
You named one piece of questionable evidence that the British government claims is true. Who to believe?
You named one piece of questionable evidence that the British government claims is true. Who to believe?
have you not been reading the paper or watching/listening to the news?
And it was the WMD, the biological and chemical stockpiles that were there in 1998, that are not there now, and that Iraq cannot produce evidence of destroying them that I am talking about. How many times must I bring this up, and each and every time a liberal ignores this fact?
how many times do you have to ignore our very good facts?
how many people must die before there's no more terrorists?
how much money is in dubya's pocket because of this war?
Oh and nice smilie depicting "Death to Israel" Do you really think that makes me take what you say seriously?
plus, how many wars did israel start in the name of land? Quite a few....
Originally posted by sxecrow
I see your point, dont think I just like to argue (although it is fun). I'll be honest, you do have a point, but I still dont feel the best course of action was war. I think it depends on how you look at it. It's too late now anyway, lets just hope something good comes out of it.
I see your point, dont think I just like to argue (although it is fun). I'll be honest, you do have a point, but I still dont feel the best course of action was war. I think it depends on how you look at it. It's too late now anyway, lets just hope something good comes out of it.
otherwise, I'll concur
Originally posted by sxecrow
It's not a problem we can take care of now. Where we had surplus spending, we're not in debt billions of dollars. DAILY we loose US troops to guerilla style warfare and we have nothing to show for it (not to mention media hype on a bunch of bs for morale and public relation -i.e JESSICA LYNCH. No WMD have been uncovered, we still dont even have Saddam himself (kinda like Bin Laden). We conquered Iraq and even though Mr. Bush's oil friends are getting all the contracts and making an assload of money off the whole thing, I'm still paying $2.00 a gallon. The job market is in the shitter and the economy has gone down the drain (again).
It's not a problem we can take care of now. Where we had surplus spending, we're not in debt billions of dollars. DAILY we loose US troops to guerilla style warfare and we have nothing to show for it (not to mention media hype on a bunch of bs for morale and public relation -i.e JESSICA LYNCH. No WMD have been uncovered, we still dont even have Saddam himself (kinda like Bin Laden). We conquered Iraq and even though Mr. Bush's oil friends are getting all the contracts and making an assload of money off the whole thing, I'm still paying $2.00 a gallon. The job market is in the shitter and the economy has gone down the drain (again).
Originally posted by 98CoupeV6 <BR>
And daily far more people get hit by buses or get murdered...
And daily far more people get hit by buses or get murdered...
Originally posted by Sticky_D
Your profile describes you as a "Computer Dork". I don't think I can take a dork seriously. They don't seem to be the most upstanding US citizens. Infact, a recent Zogby poll showed that 72% of Americans think that Dorks are one of the lowest forms of life.
Your profile describes you as a "Computer Dork". I don't think I can take a dork seriously. They don't seem to be the most upstanding US citizens. Infact, a recent Zogby poll showed that 72% of Americans think that Dorks are one of the lowest forms of life.
I think the reason he's so pro-war is because he's affraid some terrorist will inturupt his dork life. Thats why alot of people are for the war. They don't want to die, they don't want to be forced to change, they don't want this this and that, but they do want all this.