And the Next Vice President is going to be....

[Albinonewt]

Clark and Dean fight (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/21/elec04.prez.democrats/index.html)

This just makes me laugh. Clark just puts his foot in his mouth and swallows whole for our ammusement. This just demonstrates again how inept he is at the political game.

Even if he is telling the truth (which certainly is possible) it was stupid to bring it up. It's not like he can proove it happened. He claims the invitation came in a private meeting. Unless he taped the meeting nothing good for him can come of this silliness. It was a very dumb move.

[spazzed]

Umm..yeah, I always knew Clark was a tool, but apparently he's got poop for brains too :p

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by spazzed
Umm..yeah, I always knew Clark was a tool, but apparently he's got poop for brains too :p

To be fair, the man isn't stupid, he's just not cut out for this game.

[p8ntball1016]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


To be fair, the man isn't stupid, he's just not cut out for this game. How is he not cut out for it?

[cphilip]

Now this Clark guy... he is like the only Military guy that Military guys don't even like right? I mean even amongst his own he is shunned. Makes it kinda hard to take him seriously at all. And then he opens his mouth and inserts foot. Now remember this is the guy that openly ordered an attack on Moscow Airport during the later part of the cold war. Luckily his subordinant refused to carry out the order. The guy is a lunney. He was returned and retired out for that nonsense. And should have stayed retired.

[p8ntball1016]

Originally posted by cphilip
Now this Clark guy... he is like the only Military guy that Military guys don't even like right? I mean even amongst his own he is shunned. Makes it kinda hard to take him seriously at all. And then he opens his mouth and inserts foot. Now remember this is the guy that openly ordered an attack on Moscow Airport during the later part of the cold war. Luckily his subordinant refused to carry out the order. The guy is a lunney. He was returned and retired out for that nonsense. And should have stayed retired. You got it all wrong. That order was in Kosovo in the late '90s.

[spazzed]

Originally posted by cphilip
Now this Clark guy... he is like the only Military guy that Military guys don't even like right? I mean even amongst his own he is shunned. Makes it kinda hard to take him seriously at all. And then he opens his mouth and inserts foot. Now remember this is the guy that openly ordered an attack on Moscow Airport during the later part of the cold war. Luckily his subordinant refused to carry out the order. The guy is a lunney. He was returned and retired out for that nonsense. And should have stayed retired.

Pretty much..so back to my original statement..he's got poop for brains :)

He's what Col. David Hackworth would call a "Perfumed Prince"... If you don't know who he is, do some digging, good stuff ;)

[cphilip]

Originally posted by p8ntball1016
You got it all wrong. That order was in Kosovo in the late '90s.

Well some of it wrong. It was Pristina Airport precisely. And it was the Russians we he was opposing was what I recalled. But it was a stand off with Russians is what threw me off. End of 99 to be exact.

He was relieved early of his command and some (many) say it was because of that.

but I had to look it up. Cause I forget! ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

[logamus]

its reports like that that make republicans feel all warm and fuzzy. 2004 is going to be a fun year.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by p8ntball1016
How is he not cut out for it?

With the exception of his entering the race he hasn't made one good move poltically. Not one. He's bumbeled about the race. He's allowed his words to be used against him time and time again. He's dishonest in his interviews and he's consistantly called on mistating facts.

He's not cut out for prefessional politics. Everymove he makes comes back to haunt him.

[cphilip]

Heck he may not even be cut out to be a General! Oh wait! :D

[FactsOfLife]

None of that matters a bit during this primary, newt. the kookier he acts, the more the lunatics on the left love him.

and since the lunatics on the left have usurped the Democratic party, he'll win the primary handily.

and then W is going to kick him square in the nuts next fall.

Hey Boy, how's it feel knowing that W is going to win hands down and give us four more years of morality, decency, and protection?

bet you're breaking out in hives....

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by cphilip
Heck he may not even be cut out to be a General! Oh wait! :D


heh heh good one phil...:p

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by cphilip
Now this Clark guy... he is like the only Military guy that Military guys don't even like right? I mean even amongst his own he is shunned. Makes it kinda hard to take him seriously at all. And then he opens his mouth and inserts foot. Now remember this is the guy that openly ordered an attack on Moscow Airport during the later part of the cold war. Luckily his subordinant refused to carry out the order. The guy is a lunney. He was returned and retired out for that nonsense. And should have stayed retired.

Yes, thank God the British PEACEKEEPERS played the Nato red card and refused his orders. It could have been very messy.

Nice shot CPhil! He wasn't cut out to be a general. I liked his "voluntary" retirement!:D

[Albinonewt]

Facts:

who do you think will take the primary? I still think it will be Dean. His lead is too commanding too late in the game for Clark to pull anything but a come from behind miracle win, and I just don't see that happening. Clark would have to be brilliant and Dean would have to cave and I think both of those happening is slim.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Facts:

who do you think will take the primary? I still think it will be Dean. His lead is too commanding too late in the game for Clark to pull anything but a come from behind miracle win, and I just don't see that happening. Clark would have to be brilliant and Dean would have to cave and I think both of those happening is slim.

I think Dean will take it. He is just pulling away from the rest. His VP choice will be interesting now though. Clark just knocked himself out of the running for it, so who is left? It will most likely have to be a southerner to offset Dean's New England roots. Maybe Edwards out of Carolina?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Facts:

who do you think will take the primary? I still think it will be Dean. His lead is too commanding too late in the game for Clark to pull anything but a come from behind miracle win, and I just don't see that happening. Clark would have to be brilliant and Dean would have to cave and I think both of those happening is slim.

Dean by a long ways.

How bad must Kerry be feeling to be BEHIND Al Sharpton in the polls???

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Maybe Edwards out of Carolina?

That's very possible. He's already decided not to run for the Senate again.

Personally, I think that Edwards is only running as a way to raise his profile and go back into a lucrative law practice.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


That's very possible. He's already decided not to run for the Senate again.

Personally, I think that Edwards is only running as a way to raise his profile and go back into a lucrative law practice.

Wait it is all about the money?:eek:

Where is CB? I guess Edwards is a Republican and not a Democrat after all!:p

[Rooster]

Watching the democrats flop around like a dying fish tossed up on the shore is hilarious to me. A military man that the military hates, a jew who is too conservative, party mascots who are going to have trouble winning their old jobs back after they get rolled in the primaries, and a liberal who is stupid enough to actually think he has a snowballs chance of winning anything in the general election.

To be able to view the destruction of the American liberal is absolutely thrilling to me. It can't happen quick enough.

[Collegeboy]

Please read up on the crisis in the Balkans before responding to his orders. His orders would have caused a huge diplomatic problem, but since those diplomats don't do anything for us, they have nothing else to do but work on it. Read up on the problems up to and after Dayton, and what the Russians were doing (Can you say supporting the Serbs.)

Maybe you should ask, why did the great humanitarian republicans go against peace actions in the former Yugoslavia, I mean it was only the greatest ethnic cleansing since WWII, nothing important. I mean what is in Bosnia and Kosovo for the republicans to have?

There was nothing wrong with what Clark said, he did not stick his foot in his mouth, he just stated what seems to be a fact. Of course Dean will deny it, it will hurt him if he said it is true.

If Bush is elected to another 4 year term, I dread the world that we will live in. "Protection" will turn into warfare with most of the war. We will be forced into a economic battle with the EU, with either Russia or China winning (for they are not in either systems). Morality, please don't make me laugh, Bush is the least moralist president in a long time. How can he be moralist he is the only one with a criminal record, openly used drugs, etc..... I love the false since of morality people have.

[cphilip]

...well maybe it wasn't his foot? ;)

Hmmm... even hard line anti Bushers are admitting the strategy has started to ripple into a positive effect. Libya rolling over is a prime example. No discounting results! Even they admitting they were wrong. Try as you might doing nothing wasn't working. So doing something seems to be. Time will tell. I personaly am not for sitting around hopeing they will leave us alone. I just don't think it was working. And I think doing something is. But will you when it becomes evident that is is... admit it?

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
Please read up on the crisis in the Balkans before responding to his orders. His orders would have caused a huge diplomatic problem, but since those diplomats don't do anything for us, they have nothing else to do but work on it. Read up on the problems up to and after Dayton, and what the Russians were doing (Can you say supporting the Serbs.)

We don't for certain know what it would have caused, but it had serious potential to be a real problem. A problem that frankly nobody needed and had virtually no upswing.

And we know they were supporting the Serbs. Not for nothing, but the Russians are ALWAYS supporting someone they shouldn't. They seem to have that knack.

Maybe you should ask, why did the great humanitarian republicans go against peace actions in the former Yugoslavia, I mean it was only the greatest ethnic cleansing since WWII, nothing important. I mean what is in Bosnia and Kosovo for the republicans to have?

Because there was zero national security issues at stake. None, zero, zip. It was the right thing to do, BUT it didn't have an national security implications that we were aware of and that is usually the point that we need to advocate war.

There was nothing wrong with what Clark said, he did not stick his foot in his mouth, he just stated what seems to be a fact. Of course Dean will deny it, it will hurt him if he said it is true.

It was a stupid gaffe. He had to know that Dean would deny it and then they would have "he said she said" moment that makes him (and Dean to some extent) look supid. And who says it's a fact? One guy says no and the other says yes. And frankly, both have a pretty major credibilty gap right now.

If Bush is elected to another 4 year term, I dread the world that we will live in. "Protection" will turn into warfare with most of the war.

Huh? warfare with most of the war? What's that mean?

We will be forced into a economic battle with the EU, with either Russia or China winning (for they are not in either systems).

No, we won't. We backed off the steel tarrifs (which we should have never done in the first place). As for Russia and China winning a trade war! HAH! Talk about not knowing a thing about economics.

Morality, please don't make me laugh, Bush is the least moralist president in a long time. How can he be moralist he is the only one with a criminal record, openly used drugs, etc..... I love the false since of morality people have.

While I'm not thrilled about every aspect of Bush's past that doesn't make him an immoral person. He sure did somethings that I don't think was such a hot idea, but it was a while ago and he's been relativly honest about it. But, stop using that drug nonsense. I call you on it as being unproved every time you say it and you keep repeating it without even once listing a credible reference to it. So stuff it with that nonsense.

And how can anyone claim that Bush is less moral then Clinton (or Carter or even Bush I for that matter). Bush is a very moral and decent person. You may not agree with him, but that doesn't mean he's Satan, he's just a guy you disagree with.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by cphilip
...well maybe it wasn't his foot? ;)

Hmmm... even hard line anti Bushers are admitting the strategy has started to ripple into a positive effect. Libya rolling over is a prime example. No discounting results! Even they admitting they were wrong. Try as you might doing nothing wasn't working. So doing something seems to be. Time will tell. I personaly am not for sitting around hopeing they will leave us alone. I just don't think it was working. And I think doing something is. But will you when it becomes evident that is is... admit it?

Attacking Iraq has nothing for our security. There are many ways I would suppose (for I do not feel like coming up with my own right now) of which you could have handled this situation better. Illegally attacking a foreign country is not how you do it.

Gandhi himself said that you must have to first be the one you wish others to follow. What would have happened if the US was to open its boarders to inspectors. I mean we have nothing to hide, or do we. I wonder what is in Anniston.

I will say one thing, Bush was smart when he declared the war was over with the entry into Baghdad. For he as now separated it up into two parts. "war" and rebuilding. So when he has to pull the troops out (say in 10 months or so) he can say we won the war, and it is time the Iraqis do their fair share. I do believe he didn't even think he could have handled Iraq like he claimed. Their is no way a western person with a totally different culture, language, etc.. can do what Bush wants in a different country. It is just not going to happen.

We will just have to wait and see. .

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
Please read up on the crisis in the Balkans before responding to his orders. His orders would have caused a huge diplomatic problem, but since those diplomats don't do anything for us, they have nothing else to do but work on it. Read up on the problems up to and after Dayton, and what the Russians were doing (Can you say supporting the Serbs.)

We don't for certain know what it would have caused, but it had serious potential to be a real problem. A problem that frankly nobody needed and had virtually no upswing.

And we know they were supporting the Serbs. Not for nothing, but the Russians are ALWAYS supporting someone they shouldn't. They seem to have that knack.

Maybe you should ask, why did the great humanitarian republicans go against peace actions in the former Yugoslavia, I mean it was only the greatest ethnic cleansing since WWII, nothing important. I mean what is in Bosnia and Kosovo for the republicans to have?

Because there was zero national security issues at stake. None, zero, zip. It was the right thing to do, BUT it didn't have an national security implications that we were aware of and that is usually the point that we need to advocate war.

There was nothing wrong with what Clark said, he did not stick his foot in his mouth, he just stated what seems to be a fact. Of course Dean will deny it, it will hurt him if he said it is true.

It was a stupid gaffe. He had to know that Dean would deny it and then they would have "he said she said" moment that makes him (and Dean to some extent) look supid. And who says it's a fact? One guy says no and the other says yes. And frankly, both have a pretty major credibilty gap right now.

If Bush is elected to another 4 year term, I dread the world that we will live in. "Protection" will turn into warfare with most of the war.

Huh? warfare with most of the war? What's that mean?

We will be forced into a economic battle with the EU, with either Russia or China winning (for they are not in either systems).

No, we won't. We backed off the steel tarrifs (which we should have never done in the first place). As for Russia and China winning a trade war! HAH! Talk about not knowing a thing about economics.

Morality, please don't make me laugh, Bush is the least moralist president in a long time. How can he be moralist he is the only one with a criminal record, openly used drugs, etc..... I love the false since of morality people have.

While I'm not thrilled about every aspect of Bush's past that doesn't make him an immoral person. He sure did somethings that I don't think was such a hot idea, but it was a while ago and he's been relativly honest about it. But, stop using that drug nonsense. I call you on it as being unproved every time you say it and you keep repeating it without even once listing a credible reference to it. So stuff it with that nonsense.

And how can anyone claim that Bush is less moral then Clinton (or Carter or even Bush I for that matter). Bush is a very moral and decent person. You may not agree with him, but that doesn't mean he's Satan, he's just a guy you disagree with.

So why did we go into Iraq, there was no NS reasons. According to your own mouth, it wasn't mainly for the WOMD idea but humanitarian reasons. So why Iraq, and not the former Yugoslavia.

War is suppose to be world.

It will happen, wait and see.

Bush is anything but moral. So what Clinton lied about having sex, that is a far cry from lying about supporting terrorist that lead to 911, or how about lying about WOMD to invade a foreign country illegally. Great morals.

What am i getting at. YOU CAN NOT USE MORALS TO ELECT A PERSON.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Attacking Iraq has nothing for our security.

After being wrong on that fact (and its preceeding facts that lead up to the action) there then there is not much more to anything you have to say on the subject I am afraid. Thats the central crux of the whole thing. I think your wrong on your premise so therefore you then are wrong on the rest of your supporting arguments. Most of which consist of twisting a spin on what's going on in the world. And resulting world events are continuing to prove you are wrong. The thing that is snowballing is that dictatorships are now becoming afraid to harbor terrroists and afraid to develop weapons of mass destruction. They are afraid they can lose it all like Saddam did. And thats now not in thier best interest. Funny thing is now what is in the best interest of the people they dictate to is also in the best interest of the leadership for once. And that indeed is in the security interest of the United States! And this is all coming about because they now realize we mean business. Facts... they are presenting themselves in real world events. Wait and watch.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
.. lying about supporting terrorist that lead to 911, or how about lying about WOMD to invade a foreign country illegally. Great morals.

All those things will be proven true. Some extent of them have all ready been proven. But not as MUCH as you want. So you belittle the fact that its not as Gross as you think it should have been. So far! Oh ye of little faith. When they are you still will not believe it. But it's all true. Patently so. And so far proven to be so.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


So why did we go into Iraq, there was no NS reasons.

Clueless and dangerous.

Here's a few clues for you Boy, I doubt you'll figure out what president was in charge when this all happened.

President calls a strike on a fatory in the Sudan that is suspected of generating nerve gas.

Factory is being run by Hussein's chemical scientists.

Factory is being funded by tah-dah.... Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

But there's no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda according to the Bush hating morons on the left.

Is this too much info for you Boy? Care to guess who the President at the time was? HMMMM?

I doubt you will, you have yet to answer a single direct question put to you with anything other than nonsense.

And as for your comparison of morals between President Bush and Clinton, all I have to ask is who I'd trust with my daughter.

Pretty easy answer kid. Too bad your abject hate for Bush makes you look stupid as well.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by cphilip


After being wrong on that fact (and its preceeding facts that lead up to the action) there then there is not much more to anything you have to say on the subject I am afraid. Thats the central crux of the whole thing. I think your wrong on your premise so therefore you then are wrong on the rest of your supporting arguments. Most of which consist of twisting a spin on what's going on in the world. And resulting world events are continuing to prove you are wrong. The thing that is snowballing is that dictatorships are now becoming afraid to harbor terrroists and afraid to develop weapons of mass destruction. They are afraid they can lose it all like Saddam did. And thats now not in thier best interest. Funny thing is now what is in the best interest of the people they dictate to is also in the best interest of the leadership for once. And that indeed is in the security interest of the United States! And this is all coming about because they now realize we mean business. Facts... they are presenting themselves in real world events. Wait and watch.

I didn't spin anything. What I said is the truth. Like it or not, it will happen. Bush put forth something that not even he can control.

Iraq posed no threat to us, did not support terrorist (not including Palestinians for we can argue that day in and day out), had no weapons that could harm us. N. Korea poses a threat, but we will deal with them diplomatically and give into their demands.

The Steel Tariffs are illegal and should be done away with. But read Bush's words, he really did not get rid of them.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
or how about lying about WOMD to invade a foreign country illegally.

Lying about WOMD? Which is it? Didn't he have the nerve gas that killed as you say the Kurdish terrorists before we went in there?

Do you really think that he just decided to get rid of all the KNOWN stuff for humanitarian reasons? Or maybe because the UN told him to?

I can't belive even you could be that stupid. But I am willing to try.

Your asserion that the invasion of Iraq was illegal is pure nonsense.

Illegal according to whom? Some anti American group of internationalists? Please spare me your world court crap. We answer to no kangaroo court no matter how badly you may want us to.

So far your crystal ball is looking pretty crappy Boy. Better take it back to Wal-Mart and see if you can get your nickel back.:rolleyes:

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I didn't spin anything. What I said is the truth. Like it or not, it will happen.

Yeah just like your "prediction" that we will still be looking for Hussein next fall.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


Lying about WOMD? Which is it? Didn't he have the nerve gas that killed as you say the Kurdish terrorists before we went in there?

Do you really think that he just decided to get rid of all the KNOWN stuff for humanitarian reasons? Or maybe because the UN told him to?

I can't belive even you could be that stupid. But I am willing to try.

Your asserion that the invasion of Iraq was illegal is pure nonsense.

Illegal according to whom? Some anti American group of internationalists? Please spare me your world court crap. We answer to no kangaroo court no matter how badly you may want us to.

So far your crystal ball is looking pretty crappy Boy. Better take it back to Wal-Mart and see if you can get your nickel back.:rolleyes:

Saddam, Iran, and the US to a degree used the gas to kill the uprising Kurdish people that attacked their respected countries.

Maybe the weapon inspectors found most of it or all of it last time. The US have had how long to find these WOMD, how long did the US give Blitz.

It was illegal. So it is legal for another country to invade another. So why did we step in in 1990 or so when iraq invaded Kuwait, I mean that was legal. The UN is not anti-US. That is propaganda put forth by short minded people. Everyone looks after their own, easy as that.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Saddam, Iran, and the US to a degree used the gas to kill the uprising Kurdish people that attacked their respected countries.

Maybe the weapon inspectors found most of it or all of it last time. The US have had how long to find these WOMD, how long did the US give Blitz.

It was illegal. So it is legal for another country to invade another. So why did we step in in 1990 or so when iraq invaded Kuwait, I mean that was legal. The UN is not anti-US. That is propaganda put forth by short minded people. Everyone looks after their own, easy as that.

Horsecrap, Boy.

You are actually saying that the US not only agreed to gasing the Kurds, but condoned it? Are you friggin high?

WTF are they teaching you children these days?

Yeah and maybe the weapons inspectors had their heads so far up the collective backsides they were looking at their teeth instead of finding what they were supposed to be looking for.

The inspections were a farce. PERIOD. They were a miserable faliure on the part of your precious UN. And thank GOD the Bush administration knew it. The inspectors were told when and where they were going to be ALLOWED to inspect. Pretty damned convenient huh. But that doesn't matter to you. Oh noooooooo, we shoud have STILL been inspecting instead of kicking Hussein right in the junk.

Get this through your thick skull. Hussein and Al Qaeda were in bed together. Your argument that they somehow didn't get along because one of their religious beliefs is crap. CRAP. They were in it together becasue of one overriding thing, they both hate the USA.

The evidence is overwhelming that they had strong ties to each other. The fact that you liberals can't seem to figure this out is downright scary.

And YOU want to be in charge? Forget it, you libeals are INCOMPETENT when it comes to international affairs. You've proved it over and over again.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The UN is not anti-US. That is propaganda put forth by short minded people.


Yeah right. the UN has the best interests of MY country at heart.

You realy are clueless.

[Southpaw]

In referance to WOMD you should read this again it is from your do no evil boy Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/)


Bush is anything but moral. So what Clinton lied about having sex, that is a far cry from lying about supporting terrorist that lead to 911, or how about lying about WOMD to invade a foreign country illegally. Great morals.

Does under oath mean any thing in your "morals"? you seem to forget that and the whole Clinton using WOMD to attack Iraq too why is that? also if you could respond to the A+b=C steps to a democracy (from a closed thread) . Feel free to PM me with your ideas on that. Thank you

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
Attacking Iraq has nothing for our security. There are many ways I would suppose (for I do not feel like coming up with my own right now) of which you could have handled this situation better. Illegally attacking a foreign country is not how you do it.

Ugh, I'm so tired of that line. It was believed at the time by nearly every nation on earth that Saddam had WMD. Our last three Presidents have concurred that Saddam was a threat to us. Congress has on many occassions stated the same (over the past 10 years). There was a general consensus in this country that d to his anti-American posture, the new threat of global terror (I realize it isn't a "new" threat, it's really just the first time we started thinking about it), and his suspected WMD he was a national security threat.

Now, it is possible to be mistaken. I still believe that we were right about our reasons to go in, but I'm a realist so I'll concede that anything is possible, including everyone being wrong about his WMD. I still don't think so, but it's always possible. But being wrong (if that is the case) doesn't negate the fact that we went in for a national security purpose. To say otherwise is just a lie (so I'm sure you'll keep saying it).

As for the illegal war. The UN resolution ambigiously authorized the use of force. It wasn't so clear as to silence all critics, but I think it was clear enough that the Bush Administration had a right to use it to declare war. Oh, and while on that subject, I'd like to point out for the 100th time that we were already at war with Iraq, in a UN sanctioned war from 12 years ago. That war was never ended, a cease fire was signed, not a peace treaty. Saddam clearly violated the cease fire, so we re-engaged him.

Gandhi himself said that you must have to first be the one you wish others to follow. What would have happened if the US was to open its boarders to inspectors. I mean we have nothing to hide, or do we. I wonder what is in Anniston.

Huh? That's so stupid. Who cares what we have? I mean really, who cares? Everyone knows we have nukes. And everyone knows we completely and totally lack the will to use any WMD except as a retaliation. Even if we had EVERY biological weapon in the world we would never use them (I would, by the way), and everyone knows it. That's why they didn't fear us PRIOR to us knocking Iraq out.

I will say one thing, Bush was smart when he declared the war was over with the entry into Baghdad. For he as now separated it up into two parts. "war" and rebuilding. So when he has to pull the troops out (say in 10 months or so) he can say we won the war, and it is time the Iraqis do their fair share. I do believe he didn't even think he could have handled Iraq like he claimed. Their is no way a western person with a totally different culture, language, etc.. can do what Bush wants in a different country. It is just not going to happen.

It is happening now. Iraqis are governing themselves on the local level. Iraqis are policing themselves in large part. Iraqis are helping to rebuild their country. Iraqis are in the process of forming a government. Iraqis are working hard to get the job done. The fact that we aren't of the same culture helps and not hinders us. First, we know the potential of the the society we're trying to help them create. Most of Iraq's Arab neighbors frankly do not, and have no idea how to set up a democracy (they have been forced into Tyranny most of their lives after all). Second, being different from them is a great excuse for them to step up to the plate and take care of things themselves so we can get out, and they know it.

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
It was illegal. So it is legal for another country to invade another. So why did we step in in 1990 or so when iraq invaded Kuwait, I mean that was legal. The UN is not anti-US. That is propaganda put forth by short minded people. Everyone looks after their own, easy as that.

Iraq was not going to set up a goverment in Kuwait! We may have a base in Iraq for a # of years but it will never be our next state! if you can not see the difference between Iraq invading Kuwati and the US invading Iraq I feel for you!

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
So why did we go into Iraq, there was no NS reasons. According to your own mouth, it wasn't mainly for the WOMD idea but humanitarian reasons. So why Iraq, and not the former Yugoslavia.

Um, that's not what I said. I've always backed up the notion that our primary reason was to go in for WMD and secondarily to free the oppressed people of Iraq. Humantarian reasons is simply not enough for most conservatives to risk blood and treasure.

Although I do say that anytime you can liberate any people it is the right thing to do.

War is suppose to be world.

What kind of ignorance is that?

It will happen, wait and see.

What will happen?

Bush is anything but moral.

Listen, I know you "centrists" have this irrational hatred for Bush, but try to be honest every once in a while. Bush is a VERY moral man. That's one of things you hate about him

So what Clinton lied about having sex,

If he hadn't done it under oath I wouldn't have minded. I don't care that he lies to his wife. But when he lies to a grand jury, and frankly when he goes on TV and lies to the country he's supposed to lead I take issue with that.

that is a far cry from lying about supporting terrorist that lead to 911,

But, you're lying about it now. They never said that Saddam was connected to 9/11 (although now it appears he may have indirectly) They did say he was connected to terrorists, and tons of terrorists were found in Iraq when we went into Baghdad, so the claim seems substaniated

or how about lying about WOMD

He didn't lie. EVERYONE for the past ten years has been on board that Saddam had WMD. From Bush to Clinton to Bush to France to Turkey to Russia to Britain to Tom Daschle. They all spoke about his WMD and his failure to disarm numereous times.

Now, it's possible they were mistaken (which I still doubt) but they didn't lie.

to invade a foreign country illegally.

If by illegal you mean in accordance with a signed and violated cease fire then yes, just like that

Great morals.

I like em'

What am i getting at. YOU CAN NOT USE MORALS TO ELECT A PERSON.

Then alow me to retort with "In that case we can start electing racists like you"

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
I didn't spin anything.

No, you didn't. I agree. You outright lied, which is difference.

What I said is the truth. Like it or not, it will happen.

Question. How can something that didn't happen yet possibly be the truth? It's the future, you can't predict it. And you are frankly an increible arrogant person to continue to insist that you can.

Bush put forth something that not even he can control.

Actually, Bush finished something that is controlled

Iraq posed no threat to us, did not support terrorist

Except of course the terrorists that received help from Baghdad and Saddam's military and intelligence forces

(not including Palestinians for we can argue that day in and day out)

He paid the Palestinians to kill Jews. The deal was, if you blow up Jews he gives you family money. We cannot argue that without you lying about it. That's what he did. It is not a debatable point if that consitutes support.

, had no weapons that could harm us.

That's a lie. We know he had them at one point. We verifibly saw them and everyone knows it. We cataloged what he had. He didn't verifiably destroy it as he was required to do. Now, what he did with the weapons is anybody's guess, but he failed to live up to his end of the bargain, and he was punished for it.

N. Korea poses a threat, but we will deal with them diplomatically and give into their demands.

Well, if Jimmy Carter and Bill CLinton hadn't paid them to continue their nuke program I'm sure we would go in guns blazing. But we can't now precisely because they weren't dealt with the was Iraq was.

And when I say can't, I mean we could, but it wouldn't be nearly as easy as Iraq. Lot's of people would likely die and it's very possible that the North starts lobbing crude nukes, so we'll try diplomacy and see if it works (just like we did with Iraq). If it fails for a long time (as it may or may not) we may have to kick it up a notch and use force. But not until after the election

The Steel Tariffs are illegal and should be done away with. But read Bush's words, he really did not get rid of them.

They are still looking into how to get rid of them, the unions are kavetching a lot. Personally, I think he should just scrap them 100% overnight. But he's trying to appease the unions, which I think is stupid since they keep throwing their support behind everyone but Bush. I would cut their umbilical cord and stop giving into them, and he eventually will, and the tarrifs will be scrapped.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
Saddam, Iran, and the US to a degree used the gas to kill the uprising Kurdish people that attacked their respected countries.

The US? No way boy. We did not participate in that. We made the mistake of backing Iraq against Iran, but we didn't launch chemical weapons into Kuristan.

Maybe the weapon inspectors found most of it or all of it last time. The US have had how long to find these WOMD, how long did the US give Blitz.

They did find a lot of it. But they didn't destroy nearly anything that they found, which means he still had it when they left.

It was illegal.

Nope

So it is legal for another country to invade another.

When the contry being invaded violated a cease fire, YES. otherwise why have a cease fire?

So why did we step in in 1990 or so when iraq invaded Kuwait, I mean that was legal.

They didn't have Un authorization, which we did in the first Gulf war. Which we also did for this war (according to some that read the resolution, others disagree) and do to the violated cease fire

The UN is not anti-US. That is propaganda put forth by short minded people. Everyone looks after their own, easy as that.

Right, sort of. Because they view their self interests as opposite to ours they behave in an anti-us fashion.

Except for France, who actually believes that opposing us on everything IS their self interest.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
So why did we go into Iraq, there was no NS reasons. According to your own mouth, it wasn't mainly for the WOMD idea but humanitarian reasons. So why Iraq, and not the former Yugoslavia.

Maybe Yugoslavia had not strategic importance to the USA. What about the EU, this is in their own backyard. People like you drive me up the wall. You only want the US to intervene in your just causes, but if the cause does not meat your criteria then you rail aganst it for all you are worth.

War is suppose to be world.

This makes no sense!

It will happen, wait and see.

We have already seen how accurate your predictions are. We got Saddam. The Republicans passed a medicare Rx plan. The world is safer for not having Saddam in power. The world is safer for having Libya renounce WoMD. We just need to grab Osama and you will be wrong about everything.

Bush is anything but moral. So what Clinton lied about having sex, that is a far cry from lying about supporting terrorist that lead to 911, or how about lying about WOMD to invade a foreign country illegally. Great morals.

That' right spout rumor and innuendo as facts. :rolleyes: George Bush did not break the law while president. GWB did not lose his law license in his home state due to perjury did he?

What am i getting at. YOU CAN NOT USE MORALS TO ELECT A PERSON.

It helps.

I think I have figured you out. I had a great conversation with my buddy Rick and he told me something that fits you. You may be doing well in college and be smart as a whip. However you lack the WISDOM that comes with age to measure your responses. If you did you would see the arrogance and stupidity in so many of the remarks you make. The world is neither black nor white, but many shades of gray.:rolleyes:

[spazzed]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Originally posted by Collegeboy


I think I have figured you out. I had a great conversation with my buddy Rick and he told me something that fits you. You may be doing well in college and be smart as a whip. However you lack the WISDOM that comes with age to measure your responses. If you did you would see the arrogance and stupidity in so many of the remarks you make. The world is neither black nor white, but many shades of gray.:rolleyes:

Sorry, but I can't help but laugh at that one...I don't think anyone could have said it much better 1de ;)

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
WISDOM that comes with age to measure your responses. If you did you would see the arrogance and stupidity in so many of the remarks you make. The world is neither black nor white, but many shades of gray.:rolleyes: [/B]


took you THIS long? :p

I used to think he was fairly intelligent. He proved me wrong. he parrots whatever crap the rest of the liberals he hangs out with are yapping about and nothing more.

nothing but another Bush hater.

:rolleyes:

[Albinonewt]

Did you hear Clark's new round of stupidity?

He credits Clinton with getting Libiya to disarm and says George Bush had nothing to do with it. How can that be? Clark does know that Clinton hasn't been in office for THREE YEARS doesn't he?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Did you hear Clark's new round of stupidity?

He credits Clinton with getting Libiya to disarm and says George Bush had nothing to do with it. How can that be? Clark does know that Clinton hasn't been in office for THREE YEARS doesn't he?

He's using the Nikita Dean method of campainging. Trash Bush, act the fool, and the nutjob libs will love you...

You know who gets the credit for Libya seeing the light? THE FOURTH ID! HOORAH!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Did you hear Clark's new round of stupidity?

He credits Clinton with getting Libiya to disarm and says George Bush had nothing to do with it. How can that be? Clark does know that Clinton hasn't been in office for THREE YEARS doesn't he?

Yeah, and having British Peacekeepers engage Russian Troops in battle would have been good for the world.

This man's judgement has already been proven faulty. He is desperate as he is falling further behind Dean.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


Horsecrap, Boy.

You are actually saying that the US not only agreed to gasing the Kurds, but condoned it? Are you friggin high?

WTF are they teaching you children these days?

Yeah and maybe the weapons inspectors had their heads so far up the collective backsides they were looking at their teeth instead of finding what they were supposed to be looking for.

The inspections were a farce. PERIOD. They were a miserable faliure on the part of your precious UN. And thank GOD the Bush administration knew it. The inspectors were told when and where they were going to be ALLOWED to inspect. Pretty damned convenient huh. But that doesn't matter to you. Oh noooooooo, we shoud have STILL been inspecting instead of kicking Hussein right in the junk.

Get this through your thick skull. Hussein and Al Qaeda were in bed together. Your argument that they somehow didn't get along because one of their religious beliefs is crap. CRAP. They were in it together becasue of one overriding thing, they both hate the USA.

The evidence is overwhelming that they had strong ties to each other. The fact that you liberals can't seem to figure this out is downright scary.

And YOU want to be in charge? Forget it, you libeals are INCOMPETENT when it comes to international affairs. You've proved it over and over again.

Incompetent, one only needs to read you above post to see who is incompetent. Lets start a war we can not win, lets not get involved in true humanitarian cases where there is nothing for us to gain.

The inspectors did their job and couldn't find anything, the US have had free reign and still haven't found anything. Why can’t you understand something as simple as that.

Hussein and Al Queda are not linked together, one day you will realize that which is easy to realize.

The member states of the UN look out for their own interest, the overall UN looks out for the best interest for the world. If that means telling the US they can not attack another state with out provocation, that doesn't mean they are anti-US, it means they are pro-world. They are doing what we designed for them to do.

Do a quick check into US involvement in the Iran/Iraq war, you will be surprised at all we did. Can you say US soldiers dressed up in Iraqi uniforms fighting for Iraq.

And Clinton planned the strategy that Bush used. The difference is, Clinton sent in jets to drop bombs (something wrong too), he did not invade, he shot missiles. If Clinton would have invaded, he would have been critiqued by me.

There is no difference between invading a foreign country to set up your own government, or invading a country (rather be a former state, because they economically cut off your country adn was not going to pay back their cost for you defending them.

ABN, you said, if I remember correctly, when questioned about the WOMD, that WOMD was not the reason we went to war, humanitarian reasons was it, and even posted links to when Bush said one word on humanitarian.

I said that in my previous statement where I said something to you and used the word war, it is suppose to say world.

How is Bush moral?

The statement was towards Regan, and so what they are terrorist in Iraq, there are terrorist in GB, and the US, and every country in the world.

If someone uses the lie that we will invade a country because of WOMD and there are none there, then he lied, easy as that.

When asked to provide proof for your claim that I am a racist you could not, now you claim it again. WHY DO THE MODS NOT STEP IN A BAN THIS GUY FOR USING LANGUAGE LIKE THAT? If I was to call you a racist and could not prove it, I would get banned.

So they are to take our word that we will not use these WOMD, sounds fishy to me.

If you mean like the South Vietnamese did, then you are correct, but we all know what happened when US troops pulled out.

We help Israel to kill innocent Muslims.

There is NO WAY IN HECK we can deal with N. Korea.

In part we are responsible for the attacks.

IDE

WE got Saddam, I was wrong on one thing, the prescription plan is going to cost seniors more money not less.

Clinton did wrong, I will not go against that. I think Bush and Regan (especially Regan) did more wrong.

The world is not black and white, only a truly ignorant person can believe that, everything is in shades of gray. There is no true evil, or true good, just someone less evil or more good. Just like what St. Augustine said, of which you probably based much of your beliefs on his teachings.

Does it matter if we should have the EU do more in that area, people are dying in mass, and the republicans voted against anything to help them. Great humanitarians. If it was the Christian Serbs being killed, would the west have stepped in.



FOL, if you read with less hatred in your eyes, you will see how I am different from those you group me with.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
Incompetent, one only needs to read you above post to see who is incompetent. Lets start a war we can not win, lets not get involved in true humanitarian cases where there is nothing for us to gain.

Where were you? WE DID WIN. And we got involved in this humantarian cause. And we got involved in Liberia. I'm sure we'll get involved in something else again real soon.

The inspectors did their job and couldn't find anything, the US have had free reign and still haven't found anything. Why can’t you understand something as simple as that.

Because that wasn't their job. The burden was on Saddam to prove that he destroyed his known and catalogged weapons. The inspectors were never SUPPOSED to look around and try to find them. He was supposed to prove either he destroyed them or hand them over.

Hussein and Al Queda are not linked together, one day you will realize that which is easy to realize.

CB, what will you do if the day ever arrives that they are clearly linked together? It's so stupid to sit there and tell us that two people with the same enemy couldn't have POSSIBLY collaberated on anything. It's so dumb to say for certain it is impossible when Al Queda agents were apprehended in Baghdad.

The member states of the UN look out for their own interest,

True. Each nation watches it's own back and looks out for it's own good.

the overall UN looks out for the best interest for the world.

In what fantasy tale did you hear that one? Let me ask you, if each nation is looking out for their own good, how can they possibly also be working together for the good of the world?

If that means telling the US they can not attack another state with out provocation, that doesn't mean they are anti-US, it means they are pro-world.

That's also a very stupid thing to say. It does NOT mean they are pro world. That means they feel they have more to gain from no invasion then they do from there being an invasion. That's all it means, and it doesn't mean anything more.

They are doing what we designed for them to do.

The UN is a feckless organization that is so consumed with procedure and having a voice for those that normally don't have a voice they forgot long ago to be an important shaper of world events.

Do a quick check into US involvement in the Iran/Iraq war, you will be surprised at all we did. Can you say US soldiers dressed up in Iraqi uniforms fighting for Iraq.

I can say lots of things, but just because a bunch of left wing radical professors tell you something that don't make it so.

And Clinton planned the strategy that Bush used.

Yeah, he did (sort of). I guess Bush tricked Clinton into believing in WMD as well.

The difference is, Clinton sent in jets to drop bombs (something wrong too), he did not invade, he shot missiles.

Yeah, the difference is Clinton was ineffective and Bush was.

If Clinton would have invaded, he would have been critiqued by me.

I don't believe that for a second.

There is no difference between invading a foreign country to set up your own government, or invading a country (rather be a former state, because they economically cut off your country adn was not going to pay back their cost for you defending them.

What the hell does that nonsense mean? Can you at least rant and rave in English so the rest of us can follow?

ABN, you said, if I remember correctly, when questioned about the WOMD, that WOMD was not the reason we went to war,

You remember wrong. I've always held that WMD was the primary issue involved, and that there were also other factors that were also important, not the least of which was rescueing the Iraqi people.

humanitarian reasons was it, and even posted links to when Bush said one word on humanitarian.

He did say several words on the humanatarian mission. And it may have been more important then WMD as a matter of long term results. But the primary pitch was for WMD, and it continues to be. That doesn't make the humanatarian mission unimportant, but that wasn't the MAIN sell (it did figure prominantly in the reasons for war though). But, the bottom line is if humantarian had been the ONLY reason for the war it is unlikely a Republican President would have declared that war.

I said that in my previous statement where I said something to you and used the word war, it is suppose to say world.

Whatever. You only speak English every other paragraph now.

How is Bush moral?

Well, for one thing Bush is fiercely loyal, too much so in my opinion. He held onto his previous Treasury Secretary longer then he should have out of loyalty to an employee. He does what he feels is the right thing to do. It may not have been a great political move to attempt such a massive endeavor as trying to wipe out terrorism, but he did it because he thinks its the right thing to do. Bush is a very religious person as well, and although I am not a big fan of religion there's no denying that those that properly practice religion tend to be of high moral character.

The statement was towards Regan, and so what they are terrorist in Iraq, there are terrorist in GB, and the US, and every country in the world.

Ugh. But our police try to arrest and convict those terrorists and the Iraqi police found them hotel rooms.

If someone uses the lie that we will invade a country because of WOMD and there are none there, then he lied, easy as that.

YOU ARE SO DENSE IT MAKES MY BRAIN SPASM.

He didn't lie. The entire planet told him Saddam had WMD. The CIA said it. The British government said it. The French government. Bill Clinton. The congress of the United States of America said it. Poland agreed. Saudi Arabia concurred. Even the UN agreed he had the weapons when the last inspectors left the country years ago. He was obligated to destroy those weapons in a verifiable way and he didn't do that. Even if you argue that he DID destroy them he did not do it in a verifiable fashion. We know this because he REFUSED TO VERIFY THAT HE HAD DESTROYED THEM. Now, Bush acted on all this evidence and went into Iraq to force the destruction of the WMD. So far the WMD have not been unearthed. They may be hidden, lost, missing, in another country, or they may have actually been destroyed by Saddam. Anything is possible at this point, but he didn't lie about them. There is an outside chance he was wrong, but that isn't the same as lying.


When asked to provide proof for your claim that I am a racist you could not, now you claim it again.

I did substantiate my claim. You choose to ignore it. I've gotten used to it.

WHY DO THE MODS NOT STEP IN A BAN THIS GUY FOR USING LANGUAGE LIKE THAT? If I was to call you a racist and could not prove it, I would get banned.

If the mods feel that I warrant a short term, long term, or permament ban I would of course respect their judgement. You of course, when it was even mentioned during the 9/11 thread threw a hissy fit.

So they are to take our word that we will not use these WOMD, sounds fishy to me.

That's not what I said. I said why bother to come and check if we have them? Everyone knows we do, there's not a point in inspecting us. we don't claim to not have nukes. Why bother checking. What would they discover? That we miscounted by 2? Who cares?

And if they want us to disarm they're more then welcome to try and force us to.

If you mean like the South Vietnamese did, then you are correct, but we all know what happened when US troops pulled out.

I don't even know what you're talking about again

We help Israel to kill innocent Muslims.

Can I ask you a question? Do the Palestinians have any responsibilty for what happens there, or is it just us and Israel that cause the problem?

And no, we do not kill innocent Muslims. All we do is lobby Israel to hold their fire. However, we are not yet willing to abandon a legitimate democracy to the despots around her just yet.

There is NO WAY IN HECK we can deal with N. Korea.

Just like the talking heads said we would be deated in Afghanistan and again in Iraq? We can deal with North Korea. It's harder now do the massive failures of the Clinton Administration and Jimmy Carter, but it isn't impossible.

In part we are responsible for the attacks.

CB, according to you we're responsible for ALL bad in the world.

IDE

WE got Saddam, I was wrong on one thing, the prescription plan is going to cost seniors more money not less.

The prescription plan is an unsustainable nightmare and I can't believe it was passed.

Clinton did wrong, I will not go against that. I think Bush and Regan (especially Regan) did more wrong.

A) you regulary "go against" that. and B) of course you think they did more wrong, you're a fake "centrist"

The world is not black and white, only a truly ignorant person can believe that, everything is in shades of gray.

There are shades of grey BETWEEN the black and white, that's certainly true.

There is no true evil, or true good, just someone less evil or more good.

Saddam Hussain = TRUE EVIL

Just like what St. Augustine said, of which you probably based much of your beliefs on his teachings.

huh?

Does it matter if we should have the EU do more in that area, people are dying in mass, and the republicans voted against anything to help them. Great humanitarians. If it was the Christian Serbs being killed, would the west have stepped in.

Unlikely. The Republicans did not want to get involved in something that they didn't think invovled our national security. They didn't understand the nature of the terrorist threat. Had they understood that I'm willing to bet they would have been more willing to wage that war.


FOL, if you read with less hatred in your eyes, you will see how I am different from those you group me with.

Yeah, you're way worse.

[FactsOfLife]

Boy, whatever. Let me know the day you hit the real world. I have a feeling it isn't going to go well for you.

Hatred? The only hatred I have is for morons whose sole purpose in life is to tear down MY country.

Go back to your school Boy, you have no place in the adult world.

[Collegeboy]

The second you hit the real world FOL, please tell me. I am not tearing down YOUR country, I am discussing present day political situations of which I disagree with one man and his government. If you can not see the difference, you are truly ignorant of what the "real" world is.

ABN, See Bush did his job, he somehow has you and others believing the war is over. I guess the one dead a day or so is just moving casualties. The War is not over, and it will never be over.

Didn't Hussein open his boarders to inspectors to prove he didn't have anything. When they couldn't find anything of substantial significance, the US got made and invaded. Now the US has it alone and can not find anything.

The only link that will be found is one that is so small that can be used to connect the US or any other country to Al Queda too, you forget we did arm them in the 1980's, so we are in action with them, right?

I am guessing you are not a fan of Adam Smith?

Nope got that information from a soldier who was a navy Seal at that Time. Again come to my school, set in a lecture, it might change you idea of what college is, and what it is not.

Clinton sent missiles in when Saddam kicked out the inspectors, Bush invaded when he didn't like the inspectors not finding anything. Two very different things.

I am sorry that you can not believe in simple logic that I would critique the president no matter the party. I do look back to the Clinton years with fondness for the actions he took and the life in the US. But I do think that the bombing actions in Bosnia was wrong and did nothing to the cause but make it worse. but I ahve to understand that that is all that he could do for he didn't have congressional support. So bad he had to allow an eval dictator to stay in power, and continue his cleansing until the people themselves stood up and revolted against him.

Why don't you read into the Iraq/Kuwait history and why Saddam invaded to understand the question I posed.

Bush invaded a foreign country without UN approval to only find out that which he was told. It has been showed how they handled reports given to them. One can only draw one conclusion, he lied. I am sorry if you support from him clouds your common sense.

You could not find one time where I said the Iraqis are not suited for democracy because of their race, ethnicity, or anything related to being a racist. All you could find was that I said they have to reach a level to first have democracy work. You also posted first calling me a racist after a statement that didn't even have anything to do with it. You deserve to be temporarily banned, but it will not happen. there is a difference in me posting what others wanted, and you flat out calling me a name like that knowing it is not true and with no backing.

The US is developing and is continuing to develop its own never agents and poisonous gasses everyday. A report of which leaked out, since it is illegal to do so the UN asked to investigate, the US said no. Again, so you re saying we should be invaded.


Until the Israelis pull out of the illegally held land, holding the Palestinians in camps, walling them off, making their life a living heck, until they stop committing crimes against humanity, then the Palestinians will always have the majority of world support. Is what the Palestinians doing right, no, but what else can they do.

No Saddam is not a true evil, just shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.

We can not handle Iraq, we have already shown that, Afghanistan would be interesting if we tried to handle the tribes, we just bombed them, and installed a government, nothing major else, a good news shift if you ask me. We will not win in N. Korea without a nuclear winter. that is as clear as daylight.

You do know who St. Augustine is right?

But the republicans are the moral beings of true humanitarians. :rolleyes:

[davidb]

Maybe the weapon inspectors found most of it or all of it last time. The US have had how long to find these WOMD, how long did the US give Blitz.

First of all, it's Blix, not Blitz.

Second, picture this: You are a cop, and have been involved in a gunfight for the past few minutes, with one guy with a six shot revolver. He's just a little guy, and you're not, but he's got a gun. You empty your magazine, and you go to reload, and you're pretty sure he's out of ammo. He only had what was already in the gun, and you think that you heard six shots.

Suddenly, just as you're reaching for a full mag, you see out of the corner of your eye that the criminal has managed to sneak up on you, and has the gun in your face. He's telling you to get down on the ground and hand him your cuffs.
You have about a second to figure out if he's empty or not.

Then, suddenly, you remember that you are the second incarnation of Bruce Lee. Quick as lightning, you chop the gun out of his hand and hit him in the trachea. You arrest him and he spends the rest of his days in a cell.
Now how long do you have to find out if the gun was loaded?

Granted, it's far from being a perfect analogy, but I hope you get the point anyway.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
The second you hit the real world FOL, please tell me. I am not tearing down YOUR country, I am discussing present day political situations of which I disagree with one man and his government. If you can not see the difference, you are truly ignorant of what the "real" world is.

Did you ever notice you are always the only person to see the difference. Did you ever, even once, even for a second, stop to think that maybe it's you who is missing something, and not everyone but you?

ABN, See Bush did his job, he somehow has you and others believing the war is over.

Our war was against Saddam Hussain and Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we conquered Iraq and deposed Saddam. We won the war. Now we are in another phase, the occupation. We remain in guerilla insurgency, not in the war on Iraq.

I guess the one dead a day or so is just moving casualties.

Shut up. You don't care one wit about our soldiers so stop trying to pretend that you do and we don't.

The War is not over, and it will never be over.

Never be over? That's ignorant.

Didn't Hussein open his boarders to inspectors to prove he didn't have anything.

No, actually he didn't. He allowed some inspectors to go to specific places of his choosing and only by giving him advance notice. There were dozens of sites that were off limits without several days notice. They were barred from areas in sits.

When they couldn't find anything of substantial significance, the US got mad and invaded.

Do you even know why the inspectors were there? I swear you just make up the "reality" as you go along. The whole point of the inspectors was so Saddam could prove to them that he had dismanteled his known and catalogged WMD. The things we KNEW FOR A FACT existed a few years ago. It was his job to show them the proof that he had dismanteled the weapons OR to show them the weapons and they would detroy them. It was not their job to scour the entire country and look for weapons. You sorely misunderstand the nature of their job.

Now the US has it alone and can not find anything.

When you say nothing, we did find massive proof that the weapons programs existed right up until the beginning of the war. We did not find the actual weapons though, yet.

The only link that will be found is one that is so small that can be used to connect the US or any other country to Al Queda too, you forget we did arm them in the 1980's, so we are in action with them, right?

Well, we armed Saddam in the 80's, that much is true. There have been dozens of links. Al Queda operatives that received medical attention in Iraq. Operatives that received training in Iraq. Operatives that received funding in Iraq. Operatives that received sanctuary in Iraq. There is a very definite link. The only way to deny it is to stick you head in the sand and mutter "there's no place like home"


I am guessing you are not a fan of Adam Smith?

What the hell does that have to do with anything? If you're asking if I'm pro free trade the answer is yes I am.

Nope got that information from a soldier who was a navy Seal at that Time.

Oh, I didn't realize that Navy Seals were privy to every command decision and classified document that the government generates. You got opinion from an operator.

Again come to my school, set in a lecture, it might change you idea of what college is, and what it is not.

What makes you think your school is so special? IT's really no different then any other college, which I have been. I don't know what you've got in your head, but if the lies and nonsense you spew came from that institution I want no part of it.

Clinton sent missiles in when Saddam kicked out the inspectors, Bush invaded when he didn't like the inspectors not finding anything. Two very different things.

Yeah, CLinton was weak and spineless and Bush was definitive and forceful. Where Clinton was happy to just pretend to use force and make a little noise Bush wanted actual results. Shooting off some missiles as a slap on the wrist was not going to solve anything (unless Clinton had gotten really lucky and just managed to destroy all WMD capability with that kind of strike, which is a long shot).

I am sorry that you can not believe in simple logic that I would critique the president no matter the party.

The simple logic? Oh please. You're a complete partisan. You know how I know you wouldn't critique a Democratic President? Because of the way you deal with the current contenders. In your eyes not a single one has done anything silly or wrong the whole race. Even things that democratic strategists think is stupid (like Clark's recent gaffes) you just merrily accept. You are a left wing radical CB, and you do not treat both sides evenly.

I do look back to the Clinton years with fondness for the actions he took and the life in the US. But I do think that the bombing actions in Bosnia was wrong and did nothing to the cause but make it worse. but I ahve to understand that that is all that he could do for he didn't have congressional support. So bad he had to allow an eval dictator to stay in power, and continue his cleansing until the people themselves stood up and revolted against him.

There, my point proven. Your impartial critique of the CLinton years is that everything was fine except when the Republican congress made it impossible for him to do the right thing.

Whatever CB


Why don't you read into the Iraq/Kuwait history and why Saddam invaded to understand the question I posed.

Um, he invaded because he's a madman bent on power. And a guy like that needs to be stopped.

Bush invaded a foreign country without UN approval to only find out that which he was told.

He had UN approval. He had a violated cease fire. He had the right to go in

It has been showed how they handled reports given to them.

Yes, ambassador wilson debunked the whole WMD theory from poolside one afternoon, we all know the stories

One can only draw one conclusion, he lied. I am sorry if you support from him clouds your common sense.

No, a omplete partisan moron incapable of putting totgether facts and looking at the world through any eyes but those of a filthy stinking liar couldn't come to any other conclusion. A Bush hating psycho that is willing to ignore all evidence in order to slander a president he didn't want in office in the first place could come to no other conclusion.

The American people have come to another conclusion. And they're right, and the people I spoke of in the above paragraph are allowing their hatred to make themselves look like bitter little idiots.

You could not find one time where I said the Iraqis are not suited for democracy because of their race, ethnicity, or anything related to being a racist.

You're right. I can find dozens of times.

All you could find was that I said they have to reach a level to first have democracy work.

Which was pure lunacy in the first place

You also posted first calling me a racist after a statement that didn't even have anything to do with it.

Again, you're full of it

You deserve to be temporarily banned, but it will not happen. there is a difference in me posting what others wanted, and you flat out calling me a name like that knowing it is not true and with no backing.

You level of dellusion is actually beginning to make me angry. When people with the kind of hatred and inability to self examine like you speak it actually makes me angry. The pompous nature of you and the other liberals like you is the reason the democratic party is about die for the next generation. You people are completely off the bend. I though Republicans went too far with their CLinton bashing, but you people are unbelievable.

The US is developing and is continuing to develop its own never agents and poisonous gasses everyday.

We are actually developing ways to counter them all the time. It's tough to counter them without having a "them" to work with.

A report of which leaked out, since it is illegal to do so the UN asked to investigate, the US said no. Again, so you re saying we should be invaded.

Bring em' on


Until the Israelis pull out of the illegally held land, holding the Palestinians in camps, walling them off, making their life a living heck, until they stop committing crimes against humanity, then the Palestinians will always have the majority of world support. Is what the Palestinians doing right, no, but what else can they do.

Um, they can not blow up civilians, counter terrorism, and come to the peace table.

No Saddam is not a true evil, just shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.

You're an idiot. It just shows how corrupted your mind is. How much the liberal warm and fuzzy logic of idiocy has taken control of you. Ask an Iraqi who's family was put to death if he was true evil.

We can not handle Iraq, we have already shown that, Afghanistan would be interesting if we tried to handle the tribes, we just bombed them, and installed a government, nothing major else, a good news shift if you ask me. We will not win in N. Korea without a nuclear winter. that is as clear as daylight.

Ugh, you know nothing, and it shows everytime you open your mouth

We clearly can handle Iraq, and we're going a good job. we botched the beginning of the occupation, which was stupid, but things are moving along just fine now.

We allowed the Afghanis to mostly take their country back themselves. We assisted sure, but we primarily used them to free themselves. And their government building is going along nicely.

A nuclear winter? Well, kids, next time your teacher aks you "who know nothing about nuclear counter strategies?" you can answer "CB". The chances of it coming to that are remote. Especially since N. Korea has at best 2 or 3 short range low yield inaccurate nukes. We will most likely be able to disable them before they launch. But, it's risky to try so we'll negotiate first to try to avoid that.

You do know who St. Augustine is right?

Yes, I don't know why you just randomly brough him up though. Remember how you never make any sense and always bewilder the rest of us? This is such a time.

But the republicans are the moral beings of true humanitarians.

Now you're getting it :)

[spazzed]

To everyone but Boy (for that's all his mental capacity will ever let him be)...

I just wanted to appologize for the actions of this one ignorant fool who poorly, and innacurately represents the rest of the 'College Population'. I know ya'll aren't ignorant enough to believe he is the emobodiment of us all, but unfortunately, he is representative of quite a few. Personally, I think he's got a couple screws loose, and would highly benefit from some counseling (which I'd be happy to provide in a couple years, at a discounted rate! ;) ) It makes my stomach cringe to see him, and those like him spew forth their liberal garbage, especially when they obviously have NO clue what they're talking about. Again, sorry guys, we ain't all stupid.

CB..Dude, from on college student to another. One southerner to another (don't know if I could actually call you that, you sure as hell don't act like the rest of us.)..Pull your head out of the sand man. I'm not referring to your beliefs, I respect them, no matter how moronic they are, but instead I refer to your absolute inability to admit to any wrong, be it in action, or thought. You know as well as I do that campuses are overrun with the liberal crowd, and obviously it suits you. That's fine, but listening to you sit here and tell these men who have been through more than you, or I, could even begin to comprehend, that they (not quoting, paraphrasing) have no clue what they're talking about, and that you know every damn little thing about what's happening, what's happened, and what will happen, is friggin' asinine. So maybe you read a lot of history, or maybe you goto a lot of lectures the campus provides, big friggin' deal. If you can't realize how liberally biased the majority of these things are, then you're ignorant. I highly suggest you step off it for awhile, and find someone who doesn't share your views. Talk to them. And when I say talk, I don't mean do the same BS you do to those here, I mean you sit down and LISTEN to what they have to say, as opposed to your childish tactics of baiting & switching. Now if you wanna take this personally, so be it, I could give a rats arse. But I'm sick and tired of watching you defile MY country, and those who have stood and fallen to protect YOUR freedoms, and YOUR life. Wake up and smell the coffee, the world you're living in isn't real, it's a pipe dream. One coming straight from the pipe no less.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The second you hit the real world FOL, please tell me.



bwaaaahaaa haaa haa you PRESUME to think I haven't lived in the real world LONGER than you have??

oh my friggin sides.


:rolleyes:

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Nope got that information from a soldier who was a navy Seal at that Time. Again come to my school, set in a lecture, it might change you idea of what college is, and what it is not.
Now that is funny when ever anyone on AO tells you something in relating to their field of study you tell them that they dont know what they are talking about! Then some guy tells you that he is in the SEAL program and tells you a bunch of stuff (what did he tell you?? I dont think you said) in a lecture at your school and you go on and relay it like the truth.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Southpaw

Now that is funny when ever anyone on AO tells you something in relating to their field of study you tell them that they dont know what they are talking about! Then some guy tells you that he is in the SEAL program and tells you a bunch of stuff (what did he tell you?? I dont think you said) in a lecture at your school and you go on and relay it like the truth.

I will listen to someone when they tell me something that they have direct experience with, not when they use their experience in something else to say they have experience in what we are talking about.

No I never said that some guy who claimed he was a SEAL told me something in one of my lectures. See how bad people's reading comprehension and preconceived opinions are.

An ex neighbor of mine who was a Navy SEAL during this time said that him and his team, along with other SEAL teams, and Ranger teams where sent to Iraq to train the Iraqis in the basics of warfare that the US thought they should use. He then said at times they were given instructions to carry out operations in native gear, or as he explained it, in Iraqi uniforms. Get it, good.

FOL, you have no idea what the real world is, the shear fact that you think you do, shows a lack of understanding of what the real world is.


You shall not apologies for me Spazzed. I have done nothing wrong but bring up questions and try and get people to think logically, more then the surface thinking that they seem to be using. I am glad I do not act like a southerner, for if how the people around here act and think, I will take that as a compliment. Why do you think my head is in the sand. I think this way because I pulled my head out of the sand. Like I said, sit in a lecture at my school, it might change your mind. I have no idea why you think and others think that the professors spell their liberal knowledge and infest our minds with that, in the three colleges I ahve taken classes at that is the furthest from the truth. They teach you to open your mind and think for yourself, maybe that is the reason many people seem liberal, for they question the present day thoughts.

The war is not over, until we establish a government and set Iraq back to better then it was with no fighting, then the war will be over.

I care more about the lives of the soldiers more then you do. You are willing o waste their lives for a lost cause, I am not. You are willing to waste their lives for a lie, I am not. Don't you ever say you care about the lives of the soldiers.

So Saddam was suppose to show he did have any, so I guess the UN not finding any, and the US not finding any is not proof enough. So what is wrong with Saddam showing them to places, that is what he is suppose to do according to you.

And who were the4 operatives, etc... WE gave aide to AL Queda operatives, and etc.. Read the new book out about US involvement in the Afghanistan USSR war.

Complete partisan, you don't even now me and you say that. You have only seen me post when we have had a republican congress and a republican president. I tell the truth, if you think that is partisan, maybe you nee dot switch beliefs. Clinton has on recorded stated he wanted to get involved in Bosnia, but the Republican congress blocked any such measures. That is the truth, like it or not.

Adam Smith said that if everyone does what is best for them, that will then make a better whole. That is the logic I posted the UN saying in. Should have been easy to follow.

Clinton wasn't willing to endanger the lives of US troops for a lost cause. Bush has been.

here is a quote of a post by me with quotes from you.


My statement

“The US decided to go into a country and forcibly remove its leader, forcible occupy that country. By doing this they have sparked off nationalistic feelings that Saddam was able to suppress. This in turn will not allow a democracy to be in power, this will not allow the Iraqis to have a better life. This will cause an extended civil war in the area that will cost the lives of thousands, and thousands, if not millions. All because they US would not consider any option other then war.”

And ABN response

“CB, stop being so racist. Arabs are just as capable of governing themselves as the western cultures. I thought you lefties were supposed to be the tolerant ones. But you think simply because they're different they can't govern responsibly. It's amazing how intolerant you lefties really are.”

How he got that I was racist from that comment is beyond me. Maybe it was in response from me calling his post irrational and he can not stand it, and wanted to hit me with something stronger. Then of course the sheep followed the other sheep right off the edge of the cliff into disgrace and humiliation.


Now if that is your justification for calling me a racist, you deserve ban. When asked for proof you refused to do so.

Does it matter if we say we are developing them for protection, it is still illegal to do so. We condemn someone for doing the same we are doing.

So would you support inspection to the US, or would you want to kick them out.

They have tried that before, but the Israelis didn't get off their land. Tell Israel to stop their bombings and attacks, and move off the illegally held land.

Look into who Saddam is and was, and get back to me.

There is no way we can handle Iraq, there is no way a western culture can go into a country like Iraq and do what we want to. It has never worked in the past, and it will not work this time.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I will listen to someone when they tell me something that they have direct experience with, not when they use their experience in something else to say they have experience in what we are talking about.

:rolleyes: Only if it fits your point of view.

No I never said that some guy who claimed he was a SEAL told me something in one of my lectures. See how bad people's reading comprehension and preconceived opinions are.

READ YOUR OWN QUOTE ABOVE!!!!

An ex neighbor of mine who was a Navy SEAL during this time said that him and his team, along with other SEAL teams, and Ranger teams where sent to Iraq to train the Iraqis in the basics of warfare that the US thought they should use. He then said at times they were given instructions to carry out operations in native gear, or as he explained it, in Iraqi uniforms. Get it, good.

That never happens in warfare, kind of like their were no Russian pilots flying combat missions in the Korean War. :rolleyes:

Now if that is your justification for calling me a racist, you deserve ban. When asked for proof you refused to do so.

I think your comment about some nationalities/religions/people not being "fit" enough for demovracy may have had something to do with it. Sorry if the shoe fits, you have to wear it!

Does it matter if we say we are developing them for protection, it is still illegal to do so. We condemn someone for doing the same we are doing.

So would you support inspection to the US, or would you want to kick them out.

We never denied having them.

They have tried that before, but the Israelis didn't get off their land. Tell Israel to stop their bombings and attacks, and move off the illegally held land.

WTF? Could you be anymore incoherent? :confused:

As for illegally held land, tell your Palestinian buddies to acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist!! :mad:

Israel should wipe out Hamas. They refuse to recognize Israel at all. If Israel was to give them their own land would the attacks stop? No! You are a fool if you think otherwise!

There is no way we can handle Iraq, there is no way a western culture can go into a country like Iraq and do what we want to. It has never worked in the past, and it will not work this time.

Pure conjecture. Only time will tell and then you can spin your fallacis anyway you want.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
I will listen to someone when they tell me something that they have direct experience with, not when they use their experience in something else to say they have experience in what we are talking about.

Army's job was to know about the plane scenarios you were talking about, and you treated him like a 3 year old that just learned a new word

No I never said that some guy who claimed he was a SEAL told me something in one of my lectures. See how bad people's reading comprehension and preconceived opinions are.

Yes you did. "Nope got that information from a soldier who was a navy Seal at that Time. Again come to my school, set in a lecture, it might change you idea of what college is, and what it is not."

Remeber those words?

An ex neighbor of mine who was a Navy SEAL during this time said that him and his team, along with other SEAL teams, and Ranger teams where sent to Iraq to train the Iraqis in the basics of warfare that the US thought they should use. He then said at times they were given instructions to carry out operations in native gear, or as he explained it, in Iraqi uniforms. Get it, good.

Well, if their operations were training there's no reason not to. IF they were acting as observers during a mission there's no reason not to.

FOL, you have no idea what the real world is, the shear fact that you think you do, shows a lack of understanding of what the real world is.

CB. You are in college. You are not a full fledged productive member of society as of now. Presumably when you graduate you will be, but until then it is not your place to lecture us on the real world. We no longer live within the fantasy world of academia, and you still do. In a few years you won't and hopefully your attitudes will change some.


You shall not apologies for me Spazzed. I have done nothing wrong but bring up questions and try and get people to think logically, more then the surface thinking that they seem to be using.

You do not encourage thinking, but rather discourage it. The very fact that half your statements include the words "the only way this can..." proves you aren't thinking in any kind of clinical sense, and just restating something you heard once.

I am glad I do not act like a southerner, for if how the people around here act and think, I will take that as a compliment.

Boy, if only you had any idea what you were talking about. We treat you with FAR more respect then you deserve. When you spit on professionals in their field like Shartley and Army and then demand our respect because you once heard something in a class makes me dizzy.

Why do you think my head is in the sand. I think this way because I pulled my head out of the sand.

And put it where? The bottom of the ocean?

Like I said, sit in a lecture at my school, it might change your mind. I have no idea why you think and others think that the professors spell their liberal knowledge and infest our minds with that, in the three colleges I ahve taken classes at that is the furthest from the truth. They teach you to open your mind and think for yourself, maybe that is the reason many people seem liberal, for they question the present day thoughts.

You're so full of it. Answer honestly, how many of your professors are pro war? And out of how many? Remember, about 60% of the nation (50% at it's lowest 70% at it's highest) are for the war. Is the number of professors above or below that?

And like I would take your word they aren't liberal. You still think you're a centrist.

The war is not over, until we establish a government and set Iraq back to better then it was with no fighting, then the war will be over.

The war is over. The occupation will not be over until we've done those things. Those are two different aspects of the conflict in Iraq.

So Saddam was suppose to show he did have any, so I guess the UN not finding any, and the US not finding any is not proof enough. So what is wrong with Saddam showing them to places, that is what he is suppose to do according to you.

No, it isn't proof enough. Saddam's burden was to demonstrate verifiable proof that he had destroyed the weapons we knew existed, or to hand them over. He did neither. What he did do is let us look in some buildings that he approved of to show that nothing was in those buildings. That is not the same. The proper procedure was for this exchange to happen:

Blix: Mr. Hussain. It says here on our inventory sheet you had 500 gallons of anthrax, where is it?
Hussain: We destroyed it.
Blix: Can you verify?
Hussain: Yes, as you can see from these documents we desroyed all 500 gallons over the course of 5 weeks with the assistance of some international firms that will testify to the destruction of the toxins. Also we have video and photographic evidence as well as the empty containers the toxin was contained in AND the after product from the disposal.

That, and nothing less then that, was what was acceptable.


And who were the4 operatives, etc... WE gave aide to AL Queda operatives, and etc.. Read the new book out about US involvement in the Afghanistan USSR war.

I've listed the operatives before. In fact a new report was released just a week or two ago that a signicant player in the 9/11 attacks recieved training from Saddam (not neccessary connected to 9/11 mind you).

And yes, yes, I know that decades ago we assisted the Afghanis against the Russians. It's another one of those times that we though we had chosen the lesser evil to deal with and came up wrong. But, we did finally correct that mistake, just like we corrected the Saddam mistake.

Complete partisan, you don't even now me and you say that. You have only seen me post when we have had a republican congress and a republican president.

And all you do is blame them, attack everything they do, and go so far as to character assassinate them. You're a pure partisan, incapable of even a shred of independent though

I tell the truth,

Accept for when you're talking

if you think that is partisan, maybe you nee dot switch beliefs. Clinton has on recorded stated he wanted to get involved in Bosnia, but the Republican congress blocked any such measures. That is the truth, like it or not.

And who disputed that? I SAID THAT. I said from the beginning that Republicans didn't want to be involved from the begnning because they perceived no national security interest and that they were likely wrong.

Adam Smith said that if everyone does what is best for them, that will then make a better whole. That is the logic I posted the UN saying in. Should have been easy to follow.

But he was wrong about that. It was later proven wrong by Russel Nash (I saw the movie A Brilliant MInd, and then I read about it to boot, and Nash was right)

Clinton wasn't willing to endanger the lives of US troops for a lost cause. Bush has been.

Um, Clinton got into a lot of armed conflicts, don't kid yourself. A lot of soldiers died in the conflicts he got involved in. The difference is once there was loss of life he ran, while Bush stayed the course

Now if that is your justification for calling me a racist, you deserve ban. When asked for proof you refused to do so.

I have time and time again sited my reasons. 1) the below quote is a good start. You clearly infer that their nationalistic beliefs make their self rule impossible that that they need to be ruled by a tyrant 2) your statement that ALL kurds are terrorists and 3) your statement that their slightly different MUSLIM religions make it impossible for them to live in democracy. Oh, and 4) your statement that some areas and / or regions just can't have democracy.

Does it matter if we say we are developing them for protection, it is still illegal to do so. We condemn someone for doing the same we are doing.

We are more tolerant of "civilized" countries that do so (like a Britain or a France or Japan or even China). Frankly, countries not ruled by crazed despotic dictators get a kind of pass on the weapons. Maybe they shouldn't, but I'm not really ready to go to war with responsible nations that have nukes anyway.

So would you support inspection to the US, or would you want to kick them out.

I would support it they way I support drug testing the Rolling Stones. You could do it, but what does it prove?

They have tried that before, but the Israelis didn't get off their land. Tell Israel to stop their bombings and attacks, and move off the illegally held land.

Um, the settlements were being dismanteled over the summer when the Palestinians broke their cease fire and began attacks again. Could it be argued the Israelis weren't moving fast enough? Sure, of course it can. But it cannot be reasonably argued that they weren't doing it.

Look into who Saddam is and was, and get back to me.

He's a mass murdering tyrant that tortured and murdered his people to gain advantage. He starved them and killed thousands to instill fear and remain in power. He is TRUE EVIL. For anyone to say otherwise proves he's a fool.

There is no way we can handle Iraq, there is no way a western culture can go into a country like Iraq and do what we want to. It has never worked in the past, and it will not work this time.

It is working RIGHT now. It is completely working. It is working in Afghanistan. It worked in Turkey.

Oh, and by "a country like Iraq" I assume you mean an Arab Muslim country.

Racist.

*EDIT* No physical threats, you guys know better than that. Army

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I care more about the lives of the soldiers more then you do. You are willing o waste their lives for a lost cause, I am not. You are willing to waste their lives for a lie, I am not. Don't you ever say you care about the lives of the soldiers.

I'll hold you down while Newt does it! This is so insulting! BTW, how many care packages did you send off to out troops for X-Mas?

Clinton wasn't willing to endanger the lives of US troops for a lost cause. Bush has been.

SOMOLIA!!!! If that punk Clinton had given our troops the light armor they requested, Black Hawk Down would not have been a movie or a tradgedy. Then for Clinton to turn tail and run away was the ultimate slap in the face for our soldiers who died there!

[p8ntball1016]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Originally posted by Collegeboy


I care more about the lives of the soldiers more then you do. You are willing o waste their lives for a lost cause, I am not. You are willing to waste their lives for a lie, I am not. Don't you ever say you care about the lives of the soldiers.

I'll hold you down while Newt does it! This is so insulting! BTW, how many care packages did you send off to out troops for X-Mas?

Clinton wasn't willing to endanger the lives of US troops for a lost cause. Bush has been.

SOMOLIA!!!! If that punk Clinton had given our troops the light armor they requested, Black Hawk Down would not have been a movie or a tradgedy. Then for Clinton to turn tail and run away was the ultimate slap in the face for our soldiers who died there! It was not Clinton's decision. If you are looking for someone to blame, give congress a call.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by p8ntball1016
It was not Clinton's decision. If you are looking for someone to blame, give congress a call.

Hmmm who is the Commander in Chief again? That's right it is the President. His administration did not allow the light armor into Somolia due to public relations reasons and our troops be darned. You do remember that Pakastani Tanks and Malaysian APCs had to rescue our soldiers because we had NO armor.

[cphilip]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Originally posted by Collegeboy
[B]I care more about the lives of the soldiers more then you do. You are willing o waste their lives for a lost cause, I am not. You are willing to waste their lives for a lie, I am not. Don't you ever say you care about the lives of the soldiers.



That is over the top. And uncalled for CB. I think you need to take a break and think about appologising for that one. You done gone too far. The nerve of you saying that. Its one thing to admit we all care. But totaly another to accuse everyone else with a different oppionion of if its a just cause or not of NOT caring. Totaly out of line. And disgusting tactic in debate for you to try and use. Totaly disgusting. You let your temper and spite cloud your better judgement now.

This one is done.

[cphilip]

PM from College Boy and I think we all need to appologise to each other. Because it does seem what sparked his comment was an equaly rude comment that he didn't care about our troops either. So I think you can see why that angered him and he probably responded so harshly. Albino you indeed did first tell him this. And as angry as it made you and me when we read it I look back and see that he did not start it down that road by himself. So on this particular point... we all wrong. Him too.

If I went over the top in my post, I am sorry. But I think you shall need to read a few post earlier to what I was responding to. ABN, said that I do not care for the lives of the soldiers and dare not post like I do. I simple stated that I think I care more. Again if that is wrong, I am sorry... College Boy

So... if we do these again I am warning EVERYONE that calling people stupid and such will not be tolerated. You can make your point without paraphrasing with things like "are you daft?" and "are you so stupid?". Instead just say something like "no your wrong about that and here is why..."