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

[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.

[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.



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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.