IMHO

I can't sleep so I decided to make my very first ever political thread! w00t!

.
.
.


IMHO, the soldiers supposedly protecting this country, are in fact, bitches.

IMHO, this is because anyone who is being paid to perfect the passtime of murdering others, based solely on the fact that someone with more arm-embroidery told them to do so, makes them mercernary bitches to whatever the higher force is commanding them to do so.

IMHO, so-called "defenders" of this country may have more credibility of this title if they were actually fighting meaningful wars in certain nations that were waving their large phallic nuclear missiles at us.

IMHO, any of these invaders can fucking fuck the fuck off when they tell me I haven't served. You're protecting me, remember? You're my bitch :P

IMHO, ARMY stands for "Ain't Ready to be a Marine Yet."

IMHO, the South Bronx looks worse than South Baghdad. Please put the money where it is needed!

IMHO, people who tell other people to move to Canada and other strange lands based on opinions that they have, can take the tampons out of their asses because that cop-out is older than the crust in my underwear.

IMHO, our shithead excuse for a president, ruler, dictator, or whatever, could have taken the Rooseveldt corrolary of the Monroe Doctrine and used that as a "viable" pre-emptive strike documentation without a Patriot act.

IMHO, the two most noted political parties in this country can suck each other off, swallow cum and both rape each other anally with hats off. This action would serve to be more productive than the constant bickering that they have been doing for some time now.

IMHO, I am glad that I live in a country that allows us to express these freedoms that people who actually fought meaningful wars for struggled to accomplish.

Okay Mr I don't want to die so I'll let anyone have thier way with me.

Feel free to try and prove me a bitch.

IMHO people who talk shit on the internet are the epitome of not Grizzly Adams.

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by peam]

[Parkbandit]

Dear Stanley-

Don't disrespect the men and women in uniform.. especially if you are still living at home with Mommy and Daddy.

Thanks.

[Gan]

Tell us how you REALLY feel Stan.

[Allycat]

Ya know.. freedom of speech is great and everything.. but when it comes down to it, could you/would you give your life to protect or country and our way of life?

Next time you might want to take a sleeping pill or something.

-Ally

[StrayRogue]

Don't disrespect the peons who follow the orders. Hate the few who give the orders. Or better yet, the idiots who voted for the those few.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Don't disrespect the peons who follow the orders. Hate the few who give the orders. Or better yet, the idiots who voted for the those few.

Or just hate America... seems to work for Stray.

:P

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
IMHO, I am glad that I live in a country that allows us to express these freedoms that people who actually fought meaningful wars for struggled to accomplish.

See this part you mentioned? This is the part that the people you're complaining about gave their lives for you to have.

I didn't think it was in you, Stan, to complain like this about our military people. It makes me a bit disappointed.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Don't disrespect the peons who follow the orders. Hate the few who give the orders. Or better yet, the idiots who voted for the those few.

Or just hate America... seems to work for Stray.

:P

No hate. Just frustration. As HN has said, its not the masses who are th retards who make such choices. Its just the masses who just vote for them. Another 50 or so years, then I'll be ragging on China. You'll see.

PS. Chances are I'll be educating your kids this summer. Beware.



[Edited on 8-2-05 by StrayRogue]

[Wezas]

I'm angry at the post but all I can say without totally blowing up is:

I want the old Stanley back (and no, not the one when he first came to the boards)

[Kainen]

I can't see how'd you call our men and women in uniform bitches.. that you did makes me sad. I am willing to admit that you are allowed.. but you know it makes me think a little less of you that you might really feel that way. *points to the HUGE "I support out troops poster" in her window at home and at work* They are doing what they are told because they are trained to follow orders.. and in all honesty thier orders aren't any worse than some of the bullshit they'd be doing for a crappy burger flipping job back here in the states. And if you don't believe me then walk into your local burger king, mcdonalds ect.. and spare a moment of pity for the poor fool who has to clean the bathrooms. (personally I would rather shoot someone)

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by Kainen]

[Stealth]

<<IMHO, this is because anyone who is being paid to perfect the passtime of murdering others, based solely on the fact that someone with more arm-embroidery told them to do so, makes them mercernary bitches to whatever the higher force is commanding them to do so. >>


I am willing to give my life for you to be able to say this legally.

It does sicken me that little children lash out in frustration when their diapers need to be changed. It really does frighten me you may teach children someday.

Our country has really fallen, and you are a perfect and prime example of how far and why.


Stealth

"Feel better little troll?"

[DeV]

Originally posted by Stealth
Our country has really fallen, and you are a perfect and prime example of how far and why. To be fair you should at least place blame where it really lay or <lies> in this case ... :cough: Bush :cough

[Wezas]

Originally posted by DeV
To be fair you should at least place blame where it really lay or <lies> in this case ... :cough: Bush :cough

Take that back! Bush is bringing a sense of faith to the country.

Whether you like it or not.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Wezas
Take that back! Bush is bringing a sense of faith to the country.

Whether you like it or not. Oh yeah. I forget about the new budget.. now that totally rocks. I'm feeling extra secure already.

[Stealth]

The problem began long before Bush or Bush Sr came on the playing field.



Stealth

[DeV]

We're probably focusing on two very different but major problems.

[Skeeter]

I can't believe you're this fucking stupid stan.
Apparently I was giving you too much credit.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Stealth
<<IMHO, this is because anyone who is being paid to perfect the passtime of murdering others, based solely on the fact that someone with more arm-embroidery told them to do so, makes them mercernary bitches to whatever the higher force is commanding them to do so. >>


I am willing to give my life for you to be able to say this legally.

It does sicken me that little children lash out in frustration when their diapers need to be changed. It really does frighten me you may teach children someday.

Our country has really fallen, and you are a perfect and prime example of how far and why.


Stealth

"Feel better little troll?"

Although I am too sickened by the war in Iraq I blame the puppet master not the puppets. However that said "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense.

This post is very different from Stanley's usual. I put it down to frustration with the war in Iraq and perhaps a little fatique.

I agree that our country has fallen however for very different reasons. When we turned the clock back on civil rights before the Magna Carta. When we decided to have concentration camps in Cuba. When free speech required special fenced in zones.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by xtc


Although I am too sickened by the war in Iraq I blame the puppet master not the puppets. However that said "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense.

This post is very different from Stanley's usual. I put it down to frustration with the war in Iraq and perhaps a little fatique.



I agree.

[Nieninque]

Or too many recreational pharmaceuticals

Originally posted by Ganalon
Tell us how you REALLY feel Stan.

Pretty good. Benzo withdrawal makes me more angry than normal, but that problem is fixed now.

Also, I'm not calling the men and women of the armed services baby murderers, or saying that the new terrorist colors are red-white-and-blue or some other stupid shit like that.

Don't ever patronize me as a patsy for not supporting our troops' mission.

If you think I want our troops to die or some other shit, that's fucking retarded, what they need to be is home with their families.

Ranger, first of all, I am not talking shit, I am expressing an opinion as to WHY you are bitches. Not being six foot eleven and getting your ass kicked in a streetfight doesn't make you 1/100th the bitch for being a sheep in a uniform. AGAIN, OPINION. If I wanted to talk shit, I would. I'm not. If you perceive it as such than I am truly sorry for offending you. And if it's of any importance to your "My saying things to people's faces," whenever I am blessed to see one of these sad recruiting bastards end up outside the campus bookstore, you can be damn well sure that I do, in fact, "talk shit" to their faces and there is no ethernet card plugged into the port.

Dave, I used to spew propaganda similar to the way and fashion that you were doing. Oh and might I mention that I was one of those instant-conservatives after my city was attacked. I remember saying retarded right-wing shit like "Bush isn't Hitler, he hasn't killed 6 million Arabs yet." Or "If you're not with us, you're against us, GTFO of this country!" Or the ever-popular "The weapons of mass destruction will be found." And Jesus fucking Christ nailed on a cross, I was wrong. However, I would continue to pull random statistics out of my ass similar too, as you are doing, and in a sick, demented way, I too would actually believe in what it was I was saying and doing.

Stealth, Post ID: 300994 http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=12034&page=1
As for me being a prime example of how our country has fallen. I couldn't agree with you more, why hasn't Big Brother in black fatigues paratrooped into my dorm and shut me the fuck up already! Oh, right, maybe it's because we actually *do* live in a country with this thing called a constitution that allows me to say these evil, horrible, mean things. It is again, my humble opinion, that your being in Iraq has zero bearings on this freedom of expression though. Come to think of it, if our troops are in the wrong countries defending freedoms, while being plugged everyday because of the lies perpetuated by a higher force, wouldn't this, in fact, infringe upon my freedoms in the long run? Less alive troops for where they are actually needed when a time to actually defend our freedoms arrives is ... problematic. That is again, my humble opinion.

And what the flying fuck, I didn't even mention the fact that I come from a military family of U.S. Troops, Argentine Arsenal, and the IDF. Again, what the fuck? I could have mentioned some shit like this to try and gain some sympathy, but didn't.

In short, I really have to poop, while you frantically come up with reasons as to why I am wrong. I look forward to your responses.

- Stanley.

[Latrinsorm]

You should hang out with some soldiers, Stan, preferably without spewing similar rhetoric first.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
You should hang out with some soldiers, Stan, preferably without spewing similar rhetoric first.

Actually.. I would prefer that he would spew this rhetoric first.

I have to hand it to you Stanley.. you sure did fool lots of people here.

IMHO - This thread makes you look like Sean.

[Edited on 2-8-05 by Parkbandit]

Someone hit the crack pipe waaaaaay too hard.

- Arkans

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
You should hang out with some soldiers, Stan, preferably without spewing similar rhetoric first. I bet he has that one covered.

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
You should hang out with some soldiers, Stan, preferably without spewing similar rhetoric first. I bet he has that one covered.

:)

I won't disrespect the three or four marines that are going to school at one of the most liberal colleges here, but from time to time, my mind does stray and I wonder, WTF R U DOING HERE?!

But make no mistake, when recruiters come, you'll probably hear the words "Fuck" "IMF" "Fuck" and "WTO" in almost every sentence I can toss out at these bastard guys.

Thank God people like you are in the minority. So damn intolerant of other views that you make Hitler look compassionate.

- Arkans

Originally posted by Arkans
Thank God people like you are in the minority. So damn intolerant of other views that you make Hitler look compassionate.

- Arkans

I could pull some, you're being intollerant of my views out of my ass right now. But that would be dumb, and stupid.

How am I being intolerant? I'm not spouting fuck you's at you or anything. The crack comment was more a reply to the whole Benzo thing and more jest than anything. I just believe slamming recruiters and cursing them just because they have a different belief than you is kind of sad. Expected a bit more from you, that's all.

- Arkans

[Keller]

Originally posted by Arkans
Thank God people like you are in the minority. So damn intolerant of other views that you make Hitler look compassionate.

- Arkans

He writes how he thinks the war in Iraq has nothing to do with his freedom of speech and that our troops should not be sheep led to a slaughter, and this is the best you can come up with?

God damn.

I'm with you Stanley. The first post I was like, "ehhh, I think this kid might be a little cooky," but after your follow up I see what you're getting at. Bravo for speaking your mind. Piss on these asshats for giving you an enema for it.

Just because we arn't fighting a war for our very own survival at this point and time does not mean it has nothing to do with our freedom of speech. You gotta learn to look at the bigger picture.

- Arkans

[StrayRogue]

Be anti-war, not anti-soldier. Though I do detest this notion that you're there to liberate and not invade. I also detest how easily you've all bought it. But I agree, generally with what Stan was saying.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Arkans
Just because we arn't fighting a war for our very own survival at this point and time does not mean it has nothing to do with our freedom of speech. You gotta learn to look at the bigger picture.

- Arkans

I think he did -- and that picture looks a lot like kids getting killed when they shouldn't be. All because they were told to do what they're doing. That was his point.

Edited to add: By kids I mean snot-nosed 18 year old high school graduates wielding large rifles a la Dave.

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by Keller]

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by Keller]

So, by that token we should have never landed on the beaches of Normandy, right? I'm sure the Allied carpet bombings killed lots of children in France and Germany. I'm sure that more died in the urban combat in the area. Afterall, we wern't REALLY needed there. The Russians where halfway through Poland and closing in on Berlin. War is a terrible thing, but we need to understand that sometimes it is needed.

- Arkans

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Arkans
So, by that token we should have never landed on the beaches of Normandy, right? I'm sure the Allied carpet bombings killed lots of children in France and Germany. I'm sure that more died in the urban combat in the area. Afterall, we wern't REALLY needed there. The Russians where halfway through Poland and closing in on Berlin. War is a terrible thing, but we need to understand that sometimes it is needed.

- Arkans

Yeah, oil is worth killing children for.

[Varsus]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
... It is again, my humble opinion, that your being in Iraq has zero bearings on this freedom of expression though. Come to think of it, if our troops are in the wrong countries defending freedoms, while being plugged everyday because of the lies perpetuated by a higher force, wouldn't this, in fact, infringe upon my freedoms in the long run? Less alive troops for where they are actually needed when a time to actually defend our freedoms arrives is ... problematic. That is again, my humble opinion.

- Stanley.

I also fail to see how our current quest for global domination (or whatever) is protecting anything of mine, freedom of speech or anything else.

As long as there is fear of death there will be terrorism. Us playing “big brother who knows best” will not stop that.

I personally do not think that people in the service of our country are "bitches". I fully support anyone who is willing to take the bullet for our country.

My personal beliefs on whether we should have gone to Iraq matters little since we did. I just think you are going a bit hard on the people who at this point have no choice in the matter of invading whoever in the name of "good"... they signed up for the service with the intent to protect the rights we are using today and for that they deserve some respect.

-Varsus

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Stealth
The problem began long before Bush or Bush Sr came on the playing field.



Stealth

Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray
South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio

Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Studebaker, television
North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe

Rosenbergs, H-Bomb, Sugar Ray, Panmunjom
Brando, "The King and I", and "The Catcher in the Rye"

Eisenhower, vaccine, England's got a new queen
Marciano, Liberace, Santayana goodbye

CHORUS
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Josef Stalin, Malenkov, Nasser and Prokofiev
Rockefeller, Campanella, Communist Bloc

Roy Cohn, Juan Peron, Toscanini, dacron
Dien Bien Phu and "Rock Around the Clock"

Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team
Davy Crockett, "Peter Pan", Elvis Presley, Disneyland

Bardot, Budapest, Alabama, Khrushchev
Princess Grace, "Peyton Place", trouble in the Suez

CHORUS

Little Rock, Pasternak, Mickey Mantle, Kerouac
Sputnik, Chou En-Lai, "Bridge on the River Kwai"

Lebanon, Charles de Gaulle, California baseball
Starkweather, homicide, children of thalidomide

Buddy Holly, "Ben-Hur", space monkey, Mafia
hula hoops, Castro, Edsel is a no go

U2, Syngman Rhee, payola and Kennedy
Chubby Checker, "Psycho", Belgians in the Congo

CHORUS

Hemingway, Eichmann, "Stranger in a Strange Land"
Dylan, Berlin, Bay of Pigs Invasion

"Lawrence of Arabia", British Beatlemania
Ole Miss, John Glenn, Liston beats Patterson

Pope Paul, Malcolm X, British politician sex
JFK, blown away, what else do I have to say

CHORUS

Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon, back again
Moonshot, Woodstock, Watergate, punk rock
Begin, Reagan, Palestine, terror on the airline
Ayatollolah's in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan

"Wheel of Fortune" , Sally Ride, heavy metal, suicide
Foreign debts, homeless vets, AIDS, Crack, Bernie Goetz
Hypodermics on the shores, China's under martial law
Rock and Roller Cola Wars, I can't take it anymore

CHORUS

We didn't start the fire
But when we are gone
Will it still burn on, and on, and on, and on...

Also, I agree.

This blood for oil song and dance gets old after a while. Maybe if we saw lower gas prices or oil prices period I'd believe it, but none of this has come to pass. If anything, there has been a nice steady surge upwards in prices. Can't say it was for oil.

As for country such as France and the rest of the French following? Now THAT is motivated by oil.

- Arkans

[xtc]

Originally posted by Arkans
This blood for oil song and dance gets old after a while. Maybe if we saw lower gas prices or oil prices period I'd believe it, but none of this has come to pass. If anything, there has been a nice steady surge upwards in prices. Can't say it was for oil.

As for country such as France and the rest of the French following? Now THAT is motivated by oil.

- Arkans

The oil taps are still running which was the point. I think Bush was also hoping for a friendly regime which the jury is still out on.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Arkans
This blood for oil song and dance gets old after a while. Maybe if we saw lower gas prices or oil prices period I'd believe it, but none of this has come to pass. If anything, there has been a nice steady surge upwards in prices. Can't say it was for oil.

As for country such as France and the rest of the French following? Now THAT is motivated by oil.

- Arkans

And it was for Iraqi freedom or reduced terrorism?! :lol:

Yeah. It was for oil. Plain and simple. Look ten years down the line and you'll see why.

The thing is, if the Iraqis do not back a US sponsored canidate and he is put into office then we can be assured even more than this was not for oil. Afterall, why take such a risk with a "fair election" when so much would be invested in getting this oil. Things just don't add up.

- Arkans

[Keller]

Originally posted by Arkans
This blood for oil song and dance gets old after a while. Maybe if we saw lower gas prices or oil prices period I'd believe it, but none of this has come to pass. If anything, there has been a nice steady surge upwards in prices. Can't say it was for oil.

As for country such as France and the rest of the French following? Now THAT is motivated by oil.

- Arkans

Agreed. People think Bushies are this maniacal group in the oval office cackling as they watch their own bank accounts grow. That is Hollywood for you. Bushies are good people. Good people who happen to think nation-building is chic again.

What do I honestly thing it was all about?

Simple. Saddam Hussein is an excellent scapegoat. Whenever something wrong happens here, he was a great person to blame. Remember the Clinton troubles? "LET'S SHOOT A MISSLE AT IRAQ!"

The invasion now? We hit Afghanistan and we didn't get Osama Bin Ladin. The American people wanted more so we decided to go into Iraq and head after everyone's scapegoat. Simple as that.

Now, I'm not fully convinced there were no WMDs. They could have been smuggled out or hidden, but with the lack of proof, I'm not going to say they WERE there. Let's face it though, Saddam was everyone's favorite person to blame.

- Arkans

[Keller]

Originally posted by Arkans
What do I honestly thing it was all about?

Simple. Saddam Hussein is an excellent scapegoat. Whenever something wrong happens here, he was a great person to blame. Remember the Clinton troubles? "LET'S SHOOT A MISSLE AT IRAQ!"

The invasion now? We hit Afghanistan and we didn't get Osama Bin Ladin. The American people wanted more so we decided to go into Iraq and head after everyone's scapegoat. Simple as that.

Now, I'm not fully convinced there were no WMDs. They could have been smuggled out or hidden, but with the lack of proof, I'm not going to say they WERE there. Let's face it though, Saddam was everyone's favorite person to blame.

- Arkans

If it was an issue of being able blame him for everything, why ruin a good thing?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Arkans
The thing is, if the Iraqis do not back a US sponsored canidate and he is put into office then we can be assured even more than this was not for oil. Afterall, why take such a risk with a "fair election" when so much would be invested in getting this oil. Things just don't add up.

- Arkans


I think any regime elected will sell oil to America.

Whether this election was fair/legimate or not is another question. Many Iraqis couldn't vote because they were in unstable areas with no ability to vote. Additionally the Sunnis boycotted the election on mass so they aren't represented in the results. Now from a western point of view this seems ridiculous however that is comparing apples and oranges.

[DeV]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
And it was for Iraqi freedom or reduced terrorism?! Ding ding ding... didn't you know Stray! Geez... this is no laughing matter!

Because two buildings got toppled on 9/11 and Bin Ladin was never caught. You can't just lob a few missles at Saddam and be over and done with it. It was go for the throat this time around.

- Arkans

[Keller]

Originally posted by Arkans
Because two buildings got toppled on 9/11 and Bin Ladin was never caught. You can't just lob a few missles at Saddam and be over and done with it. It was go for the throat this time around.

- Arkans

C'mon, this is some Michael Moore bullshit. If anything you can say we needed a closer allie in the the near-east than Israeli. I'm on the conviction that it is a war of culture, which is a neo-con principle. Either way I highly doubt it was a PR campaign. If so then my minds-eye view of politicians just became sick and twisted.

This being a PR campaign really isn't outside the realm of possiblity and nothing new to history. Also, America would never go for a closer ally in the mid-east besides Israel, but I'd rather not get into that debate, I've reached my quota of being called a Nazi for the day.

- Arkans

[Keller]

If we're getting kids killed to win elections then I quit. I'm logging the fuck out of real life.

[StrayRogue]

Heh, despite all the republican rhetoric I'm hearing, its still good to see that not every American has hopped on the BS train labelled Iraq. I'm out for the day.

Must of missed what I was trying to get across. I believe this was nothing to do with winning elections at all. No way. Too much of a gamble and too much chance. You need something a bit more sure fire for an election.

Anyway, what I was trying to get across is is that we lost Osama Bin Ladin. The goal in Afghanistan really wasn't achieved. Thus, we needed something more high profile to satisy the American public since everyone was still PISSED about the terror attacks. Thus, we went into Iraq.

- Arkans

[DeV]

I can somewhat agree with that Arkans.

I refuse to believe that America would voluntarily liberate/invade a country if we have nothing to gain. We aren't that globally liberal. Never have been.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Arkans
Must of missed what I was trying to get across. I believe this was nothing to do with winning elections at all. No way. Too much of a gamble and too much chance. You need something a bit more sure fire for an election.

Anyway, what I was trying to get across is is that we lost Osama Bin Ladin. The goal in Afghanistan really wasn't achieved. Thus, we needed something more high profile to satisy the American public since everyone was still PISSED about the terror attacks. Thus, we went into Iraq.

- Arkans


Forgive me for bringing this up but you will remember a few years ago something called Weapons of Mass Destruction that Bush was trying to convince the world Iraq had and how they posed a clear and present danger?

Also a small thing called the 9-11 Commission concluded there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11.

That said I don't disagree with all of your post. Sad commentary however.

Of course I remember. While I believe there was relevant proof of weapons of mass destruction and do believe they could have been hidden someplace, I'll assume there are none for lack of proof.

Anyway, the reason the weapons of mass destruction issue was such a mainstay focus point was because it was just another issue to gain support for the war. Think about it, you have evidence for something with someone that most Americans hate, why not use it to go for the invasion?

Also, the 9/11 comission could have concluded this, but the War on Terror isn't just a "war on 9/11" it is a war on terror world wide. It is also a known fact that Saddam Hussein did have ties with terrorists. It all ties in in a weird sort of way.

- Arkans

[Back]

Wait! I got it I got it!


ITS A FUCKING GODAMN CONSPIRACY!!!!!!1!!!1111

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Arkans
Also, the 9/11 comission could have concluded this, but the War on Terror isn't just a "war on 9/11" it is a war on terror world wide. It is also a known fact that Saddam Hussein did have ties with terrorists. It all ties in in a weird sort of way.


Forget it, hon. I've tried to debate that same angle and it just didn't work. Unless all actions are directly related to 9/11 and/or Osama's head was on a platter first, no other terrorist organizers should have been dealt with at all.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Arkans
Of course I remember. While I believe there was relevant proof of weapons of mass destruction and do believe they could have been hidden someplace, I'll assume there are none for lack of proof.

Anyway, the reason the weapons of mass destruction issue was such a mainstay focus point was because it was just another issue to gain support for the war. Think about it, you have evidence for something with someone that most Americans hate, why not use it to go for the invasion?

Also, the 9/11 comission could have concluded this, but the War on Terror isn't just a "war on 9/11" it is a war on terror world wide. It is also a known fact that Saddam Hussein did have ties with terrorists. It all ties in in a weird sort of way.

- Arkans

No evidence of weapons of Mass Destruction and no weapons found.

WMD was all Bush could cry 2 years ago and was the only legal reason to go into Iraq. See UN resolution 1441. The rest is an attempt to distract us from the fact that Bush, his administration and his uhm intelligence was WRONG.

War on terrorism... sorry but this is a crock. American governments have willing supported terrorists and terrorism in the past when the government believed it was in its own interest. The focus should be on finding Bin Laden as he and his cronies are responsible for 9-11.

We can talk about Bin Laden's close friendship with past American governments and how we funded him another time.

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by xtc]

[CrystalTears]

See what I mean?

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Backlash
Wait! I got it I got it!


ITS A FUCKING GODAMN CONSPIRACY!!!!!!1!!!1111

No no! It was for Iraqi Freedom! I swear it was...

[xtc]

Ex-Advisor Says Bush Eyed Bombing of Iraq on 9/11

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A former White House anti-terrorism advisor says the Bush administration considered bombing Iraq (news - web sites) in retaliation after Sept. 11, 2001 even though it was clear al Qaeda had carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites).

Richard Clarke, who headed a cybersecurity board that gleaned intelligence from the Internet, told CBS "60 Minutes" in an interview to be aired on Sunday he was surprised administration officials turned immediately toward Iraq instead of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).

"They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," Clarke says.

Clarke said he was briefing President Bush (news - web sites) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld among other top officials in the aftermath of the devastating attacks.

"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq. ... We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan (news - web sites)," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq

Clarke, an advisor to four presidents, left his position in February 2003 after the White House transferred functions of the cybersecurity board to Homeland Security.

Clarke's comments are the latest to raise the question of the Bush administration's focus on overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, fired in a shake-up of Bush's economic team in December 2002, told "60 Minutes" in an interview aired in January he never saw any evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- Bush's main justification for going to war.

O'Neill also charged that Bush entered office intent on invading Iraq and ousting its leader, Saddam Hussein.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda, Clarke tells "60 Minutes."

"But the CIA (news - web sites) was sitting there, the FBI (news - web sites) was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,"' says Clarke.

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by xtc]

[StrayRogue]

CONSPIRACY!

[Ilvane]

You could really talk until you were blue in the face about the reasons we went to war, and how Bush and his cronies have put our brave men and women in danger because of it..

Unfortunately, they are already there fighting, and they don't really have much of a choice. It's a shame that we went to Iraq in the first place, really. I support the people in uniform because they have to serve the country they agreed to defend. That being said, I think Bush is a complete idiot, and he hasn't done much to make that country better.

On the news, you see daily bombings, hijackings, terrorist attacks, the presence of Al Queda(which was not there before), and all kinds of relief having trouble getting to some areas in Iraq..is it worth it? Is one womans son or daughters life worth it, when it was based on a lie?

Luke, Ranger and Dave, I respect what you do utterly. That is why I am so against the war, because people like you die every day over there, and that to me is most devistating.

-Angela

Originally posted by Ilvane
You could really talk until you were blue in the face about the reasons we went to war, and how Bush and his cronies have put our brave men and women in danger because of it..

Unfortunately, they are already there fighting, and they don't really have much of a choice. It's a shame that we went to Iraq in the first place, really. I support the people in uniform because they have to serve the country they agreed to defend. That being said, I think Bush is a complete idiot, and he hasn't done much to make that country better.

On the news, you see daily bombings, hijackings, terrorist attacks, the presence of Al Queda(which was not there before), and all kinds of relief having trouble getting to some areas in Iraq..is it worth it? Is one womans son or daughters life worth it, when it was based on a lie?

Luke, Ranger and Dave, I respect what you do utterly. That is why I am so against the war, because people like you die every day over there, and that to me is most devistating.

-Angela

Mr. Bush, sit down.

Angela, are you trying to imply that now that Al-Queda is there, that this is a BETTER reason for us to be in Iraq right now? Every single extra day we spend in Iraq, every time an Iraqi man, woman or child is killed, we are uniting the entire Arab world against the United States. Guess where the fuck Al-Queda, Islamic Jihad, Ali babba, WhateverTF would NOT be if we hadn't sent invaders into these countries.

[Ilvane]

I am saying that now that we are there, so is Al Queda, and they weren't there before. We've just managed to get the insurgents more organized in Iraq.

I don't disagree with you, on that part.

Where I disagree with you is that the people who are service are "bitches". They are brave and make sure that you can still talk trash about them, and also about the administration.

I didn't vote for Bush, and won't vote Republican unless there is a significant change in what they are doing in this country, but there is no way that the people in uniform should be bashed for doing what the commander in chief asked them to do.

For the most part, the men and women over there are good brave people.

-Angela

Originally posted by Ilvane
I am saying that now that we are there, so is Al Queda, and they weren't there before. We've just managed to get the insurgents more organized in Iraq.

I don't disagree with you, on that part.

Where I disagree with you is that the people who are service are "bitches". They are brave and make sure that you can still talk trash about them, and also about the administration.

I didn't vote for Bush, and won't vote Republican unless there is a significant change in what they are doing in this country, but there is no way that the people in uniform should be bashed for doing what the commander in chief asked them to do.

For the most part, the men and women over there are good brave people.

-Angela

That's why it is so god damn irritating in that these servicemen and women, who have these wonderful traits such as bravery and valor are being turned into bitches in the first place. I seriously could not "agree" with the oxymoron, "military intelligence" more than I do right now.

When are these people going to open their eyes and realize that they are being herded like sheep to a slaughter by a fucking oppressing excuse for a ruler that we call our president??!!

That is some bullshit, if you ask me.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

[Hulkein]

Stan, you're obviously on a higher plane of thinking and clarity that these servicemen cannot reach.

Originally posted by Hulkein
Stan, you're obviously on a higher plane of thinking and clarity that these servicemen cannot reach.

What's fucking sad about this is that I watch fucking TV and see all sorts of "Cross into the Blue!" "Army of One!" "WE ARE SMART!" Adds campaigned by our administration.

With all the GENIUS rocket scientists, doctors, lawyers, nuclear physicists, and... I think I even saw an Air Force "advertisement" for becoming a fucking astronaut. Wouldn't these intelligent beings whose godlike brainpower can be credited to the great gift of the armed services get the bright idea that they are being mis-the-fuck-led?

Well i was writing a nice long reply to this until I decided to say fuck it.

Stan, you are free to think and feel as you wish. The Military in all its forms exist to protect that right. Attempting to validate your arguments with the fact that you know a few people or have family who was or is in the service is a useless way to make yourself sound better.


As to your comments directed at me. I am not like you. You have your opinions and beliefs, and they have changed. I have opposing opinions and beliefs that have not. I have felt the same way since I was young and started to form my own political beliefs. I support what we are doing for many reasons. If you were to go back to the beginning when all of this started you would be able to see that my views have not changed. I started by saying that aside from WMD's we are going in there for other reasons as well. To have a pro-U.S. area in the mid east. I assumed we went there so we would have bases in the area if it were to come to war with places like Iran. I felt we needed to get rid of saddam. I ask, beg you to go back and read the presidents speech in front of the UN and you will see that yes WMD were a very big reason for us to go in, but there were many others. You only hear about the WMD's from the media though because that was the most glorious thing. I work with intelligence personnel, and have started to learn the system, and to be honest its fucked up. But they are in the process of fixing it.

Back on topic, people ,including you say you have different views and beliefs and it is our job to protect them. Where do you get the right to degrade others views and beliefs if they are not the same as your own?

I want to make sure that you read the quote at the bottom of my post, this is how "I" feel.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Dave]

I was hoping you'd be wrong, CT. God, so frustrating sometimes.

- Arkans

[Valthissa]

Congrats, Stan.

You created a thread where the information per word count is almost zero. I fact, it is so devoid of content that I felt I had to participate.

C/Valth

[Killer Kitten]

<<That's why it is so god damn irritating in that these servicemen and women, who have these wonderful traits such as bravery and valor are being turned into bitches in the first place. I seriously could not "agree" with the oxymoron, "military intelligence" more than I do right now.

When are these people going to open their eyes and realize that they are being herded like sheep to a slaughter by a fucking oppressing excuse for a ruler that we call our president??!!>>
________________________________

Even if they do realize it, what in the world can they possibly do about it? You're talking about these people commiting treason. In times of war I believe the penalty is a firing squad. Even if they don't go that far, prison is nothing to be desired.

Our soldiers signed up, they gots to obey their orders, regardless of their personal political leanings. The way to survive it is to do what Kerry did, be the best soldier you can be, do your time, then when you're a civilian again exercise the right of free speech that you've more than earned.

My 2 cents worth. For myself I'm very much against the war. I hope with all my heart that each and every soldier over there makes it back alive and well.

Kimm

:shrug:

Here's my starting idea:

Lt. Col. Cocksucker: Stand down Soldier.

Soldier: No.

OR

Lt. Col. Cocksucker: Stand down Unit.

Soldiers: No.

Lt. Col. Cocksucker: Stand down Squad.

Soldiers: No.

Lt. Col. Cocksucker: Stand down Regiment.

Soldiers: No.

Lt. Col. Cocksucker: Stand down Platoon.

Soldiers: No.

Lt. Col. Cocksucker: Stand down Battallion.

Soldiers: No.

Lt. Col. Cocksucker: Stand down Army.

Soldiers: No.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It's like the three stooges. Backlash, Stainley, and Stay. Can't get enough of hating the US, but LOVING being (or trying to be) in the US telling everyone how much they hate it.

Anyone notice a trend in alcoholic/drug addicts hating the US? Maybe it's the man trying to keep em down.

That's your conspiracy.

Alcohol and Drugs, [edit] stfu.

Ever notice how the war on drugs mysteriously stopped when we elected this lunatic man into office. Godamn right I blame the man. And that man is King George II.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Hey Mang, sorry to harsh your mellow. Just calling em as I see em.

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
Alcohol and Drugs, [edit] stfu.

Ever notice how the war on drugs mysteriously stopped when we elected this lunatic man into office. Godamn right I blame the man. And that man is King George II.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

Where did you get the idea that it stopped? It's still going on in full force.

[Back]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
Alcohol and Drugs, [edit] stfu.

Ever notice how the war on drugs mysteriously stopped when we elected this lunatic man into office. Godamn right I blame the man. And that man is King George II.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

We’re in Afganistan but those poppies are still flowin strong!

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
Alcohol and Drugs, [edit] stfu.

Ever notice how the war on drugs mysteriously stopped when we elected this lunatic man into office. Godamn right I blame the man. And that man is King George II.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

Where did you get the idea that it stopped? It's still going on in full force.

My point exactly. I phrased it weird, sorry. What I meant to say was, "Ever notice how Dubya stopped the war on drugs so he could cop that coke, I fucking saw this Bogart snorting his whole stash off of Laura's tits, what a fiend, mang!"

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
Alcohol and Drugs, [edit] stfu.

Ever notice how the war on drugs mysteriously stopped when we elected this lunatic man into office. Godamn right I blame the man. And that man is King George II.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

We’re in Afganistan but those poppies are still flowin strong!

Not our choice, we can not go against the Afghani governments wishes.

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
Alcohol and Drugs, [edit] stfu.

Ever notice how the war on drugs mysteriously stopped when we elected this lunatic man into office. Godamn right I blame the man. And that man is King George II.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

We’re in Afganistan but those poppies are still flowin strong!

Word. I got the connection.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/europe/07/29/uk.afghan.iraq/story.poppy.jpg

[Back]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
It's like the three stooges. Backlash, Stainley, and Stay. Can't get enough of hating the US, but LOVING being (or trying to be) in the US telling everyone how much they hate it.

Anyone notice a trend in alcoholic/drug addicts hating the US? Maybe it's the man trying to keep em down.

That's your conspiracy.

Rush loved his Oxy so your correlation has been blown right out the window.

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
It's like the three stooges. Backlash, Stainley, and Stay. Can't get enough of hating the US, but LOVING being (or trying to be) in the US telling everyone how much they hate it.

Anyone notice a trend in alcoholic/drug addicts hating the US? Maybe it's the man trying to keep em down.

That's your conspiracy.

Rush loved his Oxy so your correlation has been blown right out the window.

:lol: Way to lay down the pizzown Brotha' Backlash.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I was speaking specifically to the drug and alcoholics here that hate Bush. Never said it was a flawless hypothesis. Sorry if it's too personal for you three, but hell, you all 3 like to bash and hit the stash and share with us the results. Figured I'd share my perception.

[peam]

M'kay.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Anyone notice a trend in alcoholic/drug addicts hating the US? Maybe it's the man trying to keep em down.

That's your conspiracy.

Yes.

I was going to try and fit in a 'it must be the drugs that have lifted you to a higher plane of reason that the soldiers simply cannot reach.'

[Back]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I was speaking specifically to the drug and alcoholics here that hate Bush. Never said it was a flawless hypothesis. Sorry if it's too personal for you three, but hell, you all 3 like to bash and hit the stash and share with us the results. Figured I'd share my perception.

You called me out, I had to respond.

You are so down on alchoholics, its a wonder you voted for Bush, an admitted drug abusing alcoholic.

I’m not advocating that behavior in any way. Just pointing out facts.

::throws a dimebag all the way to England, Stray catches it::

Because, as the great SMH proclaimed, we all are hitting the stash together. The bold statement above also holds the same possibility of being true.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I would expect nothing but a response from any of you. It's your MO. Start a thread that's acerbic and baited, then jump in with Bush bashing after a couple posts.

You hate Bush. We get it. You hate the administration. We get it. You hate pollution. We get it. You hate the War in Iraq. We get it. You want your free drugs. We get it. You feel like you must shout from the rooftops at every opportunity that you are a deep, sensitive feeling person who hates hates hates.

You want no consequences for your own addictions and no accountability for your own actions.

We get that too.

Did I miss anything?

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I would expect nothing but a response from any of you. It's your MO. Start a thread that's acerbic and baited, then jump in with Bush bashing after a couple posts.

You hate Bush. We get it. You hate the administration. We get it. You hate pollution. We get it. You hate the War in Iraq. We get it. You want your free drugs. We get it. You feel like you must shout from the rooftops at every opportunity that you are a deep, sensitive feeling person who hates hates hates.

You want no consequences for your own addictions and no accountability for your own actions.

We get that too.

Did I miss anything?

Yes. I am going to draw boobs on the Etchersketch now, I do not HATE boobs. The rest of the above stands true.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

In original draft I almost put You'd "hit it" with any woman who posts here, but it didn't fit the general theme.

[Back]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I would expect nothing but a response from any of you. It's your MO. Start a thread that's acerbic and baited, then jump in with Bush bashing after a couple posts.

You hate Bush. We get it. You hate the administration. We get it. You hate pollution. We get it. You hate the War in Iraq. We get it. You want your free drugs. We get it. You feel like you must shout from the rooftops at every opportunity that you are a deep, sensitive feeling person who hates hates hates.

You want no consequences for your own addictions and no accountability for your own actions.

We get that too.

Did I miss anything?

So much, its not even funny.

[peam]

That's my game, chief.

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
In original draft I almost put You'd "hit it" with any woman who posts here, but it didn't fit the general theme.

Yeah man, it fucking sucks, those PC'er female types are such cockteases. So while I patiently wait for my significant other to confess their cybernetic love for me, I shall, in the meantime, butter up a bagel and have sex with it.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I would expect nothing but a response from any of you. It's your MO. Start a thread that's acerbic and baited, then jump in with Bush bashing after a couple posts.

You hate Bush. We get it. You hate the administration. We get it. You hate pollution. We get it. You hate the War in Iraq. We get it. You want your free drugs. We get it. You feel like you must shout from the rooftops at every opportunity that you are a deep, sensitive feeling person who hates hates hates.

You want no consequences for your own addictions and no accountability for your own actions.

We get that too.

Did I miss anything?

So much, its not even funny.

I'm pretending to agree with him and posting random shit that looks drug-related. The more his infatuation with our pseudo-addictions grows, the more I giggle like a little schoolgirl.

It's fun, try it.

[TheRoseLady]

I may not agree with much of what he's posted, but this thread has given me some things to ponder. To outright state that this topic is devoid of anything useful and the person felt compelled to pronounce this to everyone is disappointing.

Sometimes people say unpopular things. Get beyond the shocking words and hot buttons and see if you can't learn something or ponder a differing view.

Even though most of my views are not the same, I do appreciate the fact that he has put it out there for people to discuss - good or bad.

And with that time for :sleep:


*Edited because I am way too sleepy and getting redundant.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by TheRoseLady]

Ranger, first of all, I am not talking shit

^

If you say so man. You can be ass hurt over the gun thread all you want, but don't try and justify it.

:lol:

What does that have to do with anything?

Dude, you've been viewing the page for like 10 minutes now, are you writing a response, or can I go play Solitaire?

:bye:

See UN resolution 1441.
^

Have you seen it? It mentions alot more than WMD, like say the civil rights abuses in Iraq and his non compliance etc etc.


I find it extremely hilarious when people try and belittle the "Freeing" of Iraq has nothing more than a political soundbyte with no basis in reality when they themselves have probably never met more than a few Iraqi's in passing and have for damn sure never been to the country.

Stanley can sit here and make statements that the south bronx is worse than south baghdad but anyone who has ever been to both will easily tell you what a load of bullshit that is. I used to live on the subways in new york and I've patrolled the streets of southern Baghdad. There is no comparison. FYI In South Baghdad just so you know you have people who live In the Trash dump with houses built out of used metal containers.

And yet, I'm supposed to take seriously some ass fuck who's probably never been out of his own little corner of the world when he says the war is bad? Wake up Stanley, the world isn't the way some political leftist makes it out to be (and yes the same is true of the right) not every muslim hates us, nor do they feel hatred at the US for helping them out.

If you don't believe me then heres a simple litmus test for you that's actually feesible. Take a trip to Ft Polk LA and talk to one of the hundreds of Iraqi nationals who help the US train it's soldiers for operations in a muslim country. There are people there from all sorts of backgrounds and none of them *need* to be there, but they choose to spend their time in lousiana because they want to help the US in what's doing.



All in all, keep talking the shit stanley. It just shows what a little pussy you are.

What does that have to do with anything?

^

I just find it a little funny that the creation of this thread correlates with you getting all pissed at the way several people in the military responded to your posts in the gun threads.

Oh, and I was doing other things. PC is just a comedic break from them.

That's all great, except for the part where we told the UN to go fuck itself! :-O

BUT, then we found a use for it, it could be a scapegoat too, killing two birds in one stone :-O

If you've read this whole post, then I apologize for reiterating this:

You are being turned into a bitch by the same company you employ. You weren't drafted, you had the oppurtunity to go to Pierce College and get a Bachelor's in not-needing-to-be-a-mercenary-to-get-money-ism :-O

Instead. And here's the real catch, see if you can bare with me here. You are putting your life on the edge. Your body is merely a tool, which makes you now, not only a bitch, but a manwhore, whatever. Your being in Iraq is providing me with jackshit protection of my 1st amendment rights, or any of the other 20 somewhat odd-ones :-O

If you were actually deployed in a region, and there are those, that pose a MUCH greater threat to our freedoms. Then you would rightfully have earned your title as a "defender" of this country. Right now, the only people you are defending is the puppets that our excuse for a leader is installing into the Mideast. Fortunately for you, I doubt your deployment will last long enough before complete civil war breaks loose and the Iraqi assassination account increases exponentially, raping you of your defender status, but at the same time probably sparing your life, you should be thankful too :-O

The fact, that you do not realize that you are being a bitch to arm sashes and a whore to Imperials, makes me really support our troops, because anyone that fucking dumb, just shouldn't have been put in harm's way in the first place, it's like giving a retard a knife and asking him, "Who's Special!?" Totally cruel and unfair :-O

Oh, and as for that other thread you were mentioning :offtopic: BUT I'll satisfy your military curiousity nonetheless. I know you would rather see me break down and say it had everything to do with my stance on this matter, but if you've ever read any threads by me, and it would appear that if you have you didn't pick up on subtle clues of my Glorified Position, that I had no clue whatsoever that any of those people were military. Sorry, your assumptions, as usual, are fucking wrong :-O

That's about it. Sorry if I missed anything. And please, for the love of mankind, do not make me repeat myself. :-O

I made this :-O thing so that you could see that I'm kindhearted and view this matter with utter respect and seriousness.

[SpunGirl]

I'll have to say that IMHO, this thread is bullshit. I really don't care if you agree with the war, don't agree with it, or have some way of twisting perspectives to come up with the conclusion that service men and women are "bitches."

These are people that are keeping their word, doing what they promised, and earning damned little doing it. They are also my friends and family members. Considering some of the past things you've posted, Stanley, it seems to me you might be able to learn a thing or two from keeping your word and doing what you promised.

-K

I really like you Spun, but if you think this thread is bullshit, then why in Mother Earth's good name are you posting in it?

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
I really like you Spun, but if you think this thread is bullshit, then why in Mother Earth's good name are you posting in it?

Just exercising my right to say what I think is bullshit. Kind of like you.

-K

Right now, the only people you are defending is the puppets that our excuse for a leader is installing into the Mideast

^

Says who? Some online publication? Tell me Stan, how in touch are you with the feelings of Iraqi's?

How many have you talked to from varying backgrounds within the country?

How much do you really know about the conditions of the country before and after the war?


Think real hard Stanley before you answer these questions. Right now you just seem like a petulent kid who had his lolli pop taken away. The point is you have no *clue* whatsoever about any of the things you are trying to argue about.

I'm not defending freedoms? Tell that to 70% of the registered voters who turned out to vote.

We can get into a long discussion on how defending the freedoms of other people goes a long way to securing your own, but somehow I imagine you'll just post some bullshit you read on commondreams.org.

Oh, alright.

Just tell me you didn't pull a RangerD1 and not read the thread before you posted the small part about friends and family being in the services.

I only say this because a certain poster said this was a poor excuse at gaining sympathy, and I wouldn't want him to start flaming you too.

I've read the thread thanks ;)

[Shari]

I'm going to take a picture of my ear....I need someone to check and see if there is blood coming out my ears...as it feels like my brain is bleeding.

Originally posted by RangerD1
Right now, the only people you are defending is the puppets that our excuse for a leader is installing into the Mideast

^

Says who? Some online publication? Tell me Stan, how in touch are you with the feelings of Iraqi's?

How many have you talked to from varying backgrounds within the country?

How much do you really know about the conditions of the country before and after the war?


Think real hard Stanley before you answer these questions. Right now you just seem like a petulent kid who had his lolli pop taken away. The point is you have no *clue* whatsoever about any of the things you are trying to argue about.

I'm not defending freedoms? Tell that to 70% of the registered voters who turned out to vote.

We can get into a long discussion on how defending the freedoms of other people goes a long way to securing your own, but somehow I imagine you'll just post some bullshit you read on commondreams.org.

How many fucking IMHO's did you miss?

All that bullshit about people who have been to places like this... been there, done that.

It's actually funny, because I work at a certain University where a certain C student who happens to be a certain president attended. Guess Yale must be real fucking right-wing, except, well, no. It's not.

I often times joke around with the Turks, Bosnians, Iranians and Iraqis who became doctors here in the United States, calling them terrorists or messing with them in whatever way. They laugh it up, we have good times. One thing that I find incredibly interesting is how NOT supportive of this administration these people that you claim are welcoming us with open arms (while suicide-bombing us every day) are. I actually got this weird "fast-day protest" thing from an Iranian doctor.

Anyway, not to be mean, but fuck your failed idea of me not having talked to people about it bullshit, because that's what the fuck it is, bullshit, don't try to act like your shit doesn't stink.

P.S. What is commondreams.org?

Tell me stan are you upset because daddy got pissed off at you using his credit card again?

I actually got my own Mastercard now, Bob at Simu can verify this.

Edited to Add: 1-636-925-3172

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

[Warriorbird]

Funny hearing Dave talk about the "many" reasons we went to Iraq when he and others denied a whole bunch of those when I brought them up.

If this war is about defending our freedoms of speech, WTF is the Patriot Act? Right wing idealogues on Fox even question whether it's done anything useful to catch terrorists.

I'll break it down for you, SHM, while you bash Stan and those others a bit. You vote Republican because you associate it with economic success. You may even vote Republican because it will, "shrink government." The size of the government has doubled in ten years of a Republican congress. As far as economic success goes, the highest 5% of wage earners in America are going to pay 2% more in taxes this year. Woo hoo for those Bush tax cuts. Not to say that the Democrats are anything better in those categories for your reasons of voting, but the Republicans aren't really all that conservative.

It's also funny hearing that the war "isn't for oil" because gas prices haven't dropped. Wasn't one of the early reasons tossed out that it WOULD cause gas prices to drop? The big oil companies merely haven't passed profits onto the public. All the soldiers fighting to protect KBR and Halliburton... and you're sure as hell not getting any of the profits.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Kainen]

You know I dont generally avoid threads just because I don't agree with somethings that are being said.. but I am finding myself becoming more and more dissapointed with Stan. I realize as one of the cock teasin female PC types my opinion doesn't matter much.. so I'll leave off and find another thread to read.

Originally posted by Kainen
You know I dont generally avoid threads just because I don't agree with somethings that are being said.. but I am finding myself becoming more and more dissapointed with Stan. I realize as one of the cock teasin female PC types my opinion doesn't matter much.. so I'll leave off and find another thread to read.

That was sarcasm and I'm sorry if it offended you. Don't mistake my apology for weakness though. Everything and anything else I will/have posted in this thread has not been sarcastic though. I will never be sorry for stating my opinion. And personally, I'm kind of sad that people who are generally MUCH less friendly to me than you are, actually UNDERSTOOD the message I was trying to convey and agreed with me (to some extent anyway.)

[Kainen]

I understood what you were saying.. but I dont have to agree.. AND the agreeing that I am a cock teaser IN ANY RESPECT was also sarcasm. I thought I would state that I was dissapointed with your point of view rather than call you a jackass or any other of the several names I could have. I just didn't see a point to doing that.

Originally posted by Kainen
I understood what you were saying.. but I dont have to agree.. AND the agreeing that I am a cock teaser IN ANY RESPECT was also sarcasm. I thought I would state that I was dissapointed with your point of view rather than call you a jackass or any other of the several names I could have. I just didn't see a point to doing that.

Ah.

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Anyone notice a trend in alcoholic/drug addicts hating the US? Maybe it's the man trying to keep em down.

That's your conspiracy.

Yes.

I was going to try and fit in a 'it must be the drugs that have lifted you to a higher plane of reason that the soldiers simply cannot reach.'

:-O

What's even better is when the soldiers are the ones being forced to do drugs ... for medical purposes only :rolleyes: even though it wasn't their choice :(

Quinuclidinyl Benzilate (http://www.levity.com/aciddreams/samples/bz.html) anyone?

I often times joke around with the Turks, Bosnians, Iranians and Iraqis who became doctors here in the United States,

^

So in other words those who had the economic means and freedom of manuever to leave their countries and put themselves through an exspensive school to become doctors. Somehow, I doubt they are indictive of the average person. I've met a few of those as well through my mother who works at the U of C's department of economics.

Keep thinking that you know what the fuck you're talking about because you don't.

Feel free to argue objectively about why you think Iraq will degenerate into civil war with the US present.

Feel free to try and explain your reasoning that the south bronx is worse than baghdad.

Personally, I don't think you can because your just a petulent fuck with no grasp on the real world. You'd rather spend time looking through old threads to see what community college I went to than find out whats really going on.

Oh, and I really couldn't care less about all that bullshit you spout about the bush administration because I don't care for it either, but for different reasons.

That's nice.

[Nieninque]

Wow...some thread.
I don tthink it's bullshit, but I think Stanley is very misguided in some shit. That whole "I know some Iraqi people and they arent happy about the war" thing is stupid.

D, Stealth, TOJ are three of the only people who are going to be anywhere near the understanding of how things are for Iraqi people, because they are there (or in TOJ's cae was there.)

Someone posted a webpage of photos of kids in Iraq (I think it was warriorbird) which was both horrifying and compelling at the same time. It certainly made me think about stuff which I think I probably knew, but hadnt considered. People sitting in their cozy rooms in cozy Western countries, shouldnt be so damning/dismissive about what's going on for people (soldiers or locals) in Iraq, because to be honest, you dont have any idea of how things are.

I am so anti this war it is untrue, particularly in the dishonesty involved in going to war. We are there now, and there are things that need to happen to improve the life-chances for those people and especially those kids, so that when they reach young adulthood, they have things they can achieve other than being part of Jihad.

One thing that concerns me is that there were, for sure, reasons to justify some intervention in Iraq in some way, but it is by no means the only country that is oppressing the people within that country in the way that Saddam Hussain was. You can also be sure that there will be little done (if anything) to address these concerns, which fuels my feelings about there being other motivations for this war than "Saving the brown people".

After all said and done, I know many people that are and have been in the army, and I dont know any one of them that joined to go to war. They joined knowing that if there was a war, they may be required to go, but in return for that, they get training, opportunities, accommodations etc. that improve their lifechances in many ways. IMHO, if they take the pay and training and the rest of it, and then when push comes to shove decide they dont want to go to war, that makes them much bigger bitches than you are berating them for going, Stanley.

what you missed out from your little roleplay was:

Lt Col Shitforbrains: Go get your gun soldier!
Soldier: No!
Lt Col Shitforbrains: Sgt Major! Get this creature off to jail!

And after all said and done, their lives have been change in ways you will never imagine. It's one thing sitting here, at college looking at photographs of kids with limbs blown off and feeling bad about it, then going off to my next lecture...it's another thing being there and having to deal with that situation. Their outlook on life will be forever changed, Stanley. Irrepairably. They are doing something they feel is right and are doing a lot of good along the way, [i]despite[/] the reasons for them being there in the first place and despite the way they were sent there.

Choose your targets better and you will probably get a whole load more support in what you are trying to say.

I respect your honesty to say what you thought, I just think you could have done a little better by thinking it through

Originally posted by Nieninque
Wow...some thread.
I don tthink it's bullshit, but I think Stanley is very misguided in some shit. That whole "I know some Iraqi people and they arent happy about the war" thing is stupid.

D, Stealth, TOJ are three of the only people who are going to be anywhere near the understanding of how things are for Iraqi people, because they are there (or in TOJ's cae was there.)

Someone posted a webpage of photos of kids in Iraq (I think it was warriorbird) which was both horrifying and compelling at the same time. It certainly made me think about stuff which I think I probably knew, but hadnt considered. People sitting in their cozy rooms in cozy Western countries, shouldnt be so damning/dismissive about what's going on for people (soldiers or locals) in Iraq, because to be honest, you dont have any idea of how things are.

I am so anti this war it is untrue, particularly in the dishonesty involved in going to war. We are there now, and there are things that need to happen to improve the life-chances for those people and especially those kids, so that when they reach young adulthood, they have things they can achieve other than being part of Jihad.

One thing that concerns me is that there were, for sure, reasons to justify some intervention in Iraq in some way, but it is by no means the only country that is oppressing the people within that country in the way that Saddam Hussain was. You can also be sure that there will be little done (if anything) to address these concerns, which fuels my feelings about there being other motivations for this war than "Saving the brown people".

After all said and done, I know many people that are and have been in the army, and I dont know any one of them that joined to go to war. They joined knowing that if there was a war, they may be required to go, but in return for that, they get training, opportunities, accommodations etc. that improve their lifechances in many ways. IMHO, if they take the pay and training and the rest of it, and then when push comes to shove decide they dont want to go to war, that makes them much bigger bitches than you are berating them for going, Stanley.

what you missed out from your little roleplay was:

Lt Col Shitforbrains: Go get your gun soldier!
Soldier: No!
Lt Col Shitforbrains: Sgt Major! Get this creature off to jail!

And after all said and done, their lives have been change in ways you will never imagine. It's one thing sitting here, at college looking at photographs of kids with limbs blown off and feeling bad about it, then going off to my next lecture...it's another thing being there and having to deal with that situation. Their outlook on life will be forever changed, Stanley. Irrepairably. They are doing something they feel is right and are doing a lot of good along the way, despite the reasons for them being there in the first place and despite the way they were sent there.

Choose your targets better and you will probably get a whole load more support in what you are trying to say.

I respect your honesty to say what you thought, I just think you could have done a little better by thinking it through

Thanks for the support.

As for being there, yeah, you most definately have a point. With this cocksmoker, and I think Fidel said it best with his comments about facial expression in the innaugeration about, "Looking Demented," I'm sure that we will see a draft soon enough and if I'm lucky, I'll get to experience these countries we invade first-hand. Until then, I am going to voice my opinions and give everbountiful thanks to the people who made it possible for me to express myself without having to subject myself to a fear of flying to whichever country is currently being colonialized.

It is without a doubt that you could compare this to a war against a darker people, although this time we've become such a backwards society, that I feel that fear of the oscuro won't make us give back half the land this time around.

I am sorry you had to see pictures of the casualties in Iraq, it must be that much harder on our soldiers. One picture though, that struck me as particularly striking, was the image of a Marine shooting a man who might not have been dead, but sure as shit was then. Lt. Col. Bob Miller's comments about acting in self-defense, Sgt. Nick Graham's remarks about not trusting anyone and that the marine did nothing wrong, and the most disheartening, the 1st Marine Division investigating the incident as alleged all make me ponder such of many incidents as pure, unalduterated, Grade A U.S. bullshit. I don't mean to sound insensitive, but would it have been an allegation if the Marine was the "victim" instead?

Anyway, I'm going to harp on the whole "being there" thing a bit more, before I move onto your next point.

- I can't, no matter what drugs people tell me I'm taking, make myself go back into history and relive something as horrible as the holocaust, Vietnam war, the Yankees losing the 2001 World Series, etc. But it is through the miracle of documentation, that I am able to gain a perspective on how things "probably were," and depending on how young or susceptible my mind is/was at the time I was/am being educated on these event, chances are, that learning things other than pick-up lines might also reflect themselves in my daily behaviour. I hold any newsource that I deem credible in the same light. They aren't things that without the use of hallucinogens, can easily be perceived by the 5 senses, but are about as close as you're going to get without being there, and should hold some credibility. If I had fucked up as bad as the president has right now, what a better way to cover up the official number of insurgents today by staging a little censorship. I'm not talking about blacking out the names of previous associates you'd rather not have people like Michael Moore know you were in contact with, but more of a subtle censorship, whether it be a sudden need for duct tape, or a sudden fixation on gay marriage. Fortunately, I can "open my eyes" to Fox, CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera and hopefully get the most well rounded feel to how things "really are."

I am so in congruence with you about children not joining these killing machines, albeit the Islamic Jihad, or the U.S. Military. Maybe, just maybe, if we provided enough material (it can be still be the brainwashing type :P) that children in Palestine would be dissuaded from self-exploding, and war-mongers in the U.S. would not want to just, "Drop a nuke on 'em and let their God sort them out."

As for military personel, they are indeed taught a few values that they have learned in the forces when they hopefully make it back alive. My only problem with this is that, it shouldn't have to be that you get strapped with an M16 and a silly motto to learn it. Focus on the homefront so that parents can teach their children these things, and their children's children, without ever having to put a hole in another human being to learn a "value."

You say you know many people that have been or are in the army. That makes me nervous for two reasons. One being that you, and other British posters on these forums seem to be around the age where their parents or other significant people in their lives may have served in the Faulkland wars. I assure you, that when the Jutland came into the Malvinas and my Latin kin were armed with just Mauser rifles, that I can be pretty sure of the fact that "my people" didn't knock off any of your guys, or so I could hope.
The second reason it makes me nervous is because of the fact that I may serve to further ostrocize myself if I actually brought in what legal U.S. documentations of warfare that I know into the playingfield and decided to actually say what I think should have happened off the coast of Argentina.

As for my role-played situation, my point in case was to demonstrate that if a closely-knit community of U.S. troops were to get the notion of a way in which they could carry out a successful quell to Captain Dickhead in a situation where they are being lead like sheep to the slaughter, this would be infinitely more positive than the outcome involving the bleak reality of death because you agreed. I don't think there's a human being alive on this planet who hasn't done something someone else told them to do and knew it was wrong anyway.

And lastly, yes, I agree with you that their outlook on life will be physically, mentally and emotionally distorted permanently for the attrocities that they have committed or been committed to. No matter how much stoicism a soldier claims that they may have, I refuse to believe that "shit happens" is going to be a sound defense everytime they duck and cover when they hear a car backfire.

And lastly, I really hope that no one has gotten the idea that I somehow don't support the troops? I wish that each one could be home with their loved ones everyday, my heart goes out to G.I.'s, Citizens, Rebels, you name it, who have died because all they did was follow an order, a dream, a whim or an opinion.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
Thanks for the support.

As for being there, yeah, you most definately have a point. With this cocksmoker, and I think Fidel said it best with his comments about facial expression in the innaugeration about, "Looking Demented," I'm sure that we will see a draft soon enough and if I'm lucky, I'll get to experience these countries we invade first-hand. Until then, I am going to voice my opinions and give everbountiful thanks to the people who made it possible for me to express myself without having to subject myself to a fear of flying to whichever country is currently being colonialized.

But can you not see that it is disengenuous to say that you are thankful to the people who gave you the right to be able to express yourself, and the things you are using that right to do, is slag off the people who earned you that right?


As for military personel, they are indeed taught a few values that they have learned in the forces when they hopefully make it back alive. My only problem with this is that, it shouldn't have to be that you get strapped with an M16 and a silly motto to learn it. Focus on the homefront so that parents can teach their children these things, and their children's children, without ever having to put a hole in another human being to learn a "value."

You say you know many people that have been or are in the army. That makes me nervous for two reasons. One being that you, and other British posters on these forums seem to be around the age where their parents or other significant people in their lives may have served in the Faulkland wars. I assure you, that when the Jutland came into the Malvinas and my Latin kin were armed with just Mauser rifles, that I can be pretty sure of the fact that "my people" didn't knock off any of your guys, or so I could hope.

I had a cousin who served in the Falklands, my brother is in iraq. I had a cousin who died in Northern Ireland and knew people who were killed in Ireland.


The second reason it makes me nervous is because of the fact that I may serve to further ostrocize myself if I actually brought in what legal U.S. documentations of warfare that I know into the playingfield and decided to actually say what I think should have happened off the coast of Argentina.

It was a war over a garden allotment in the South Atlantic. War is stupid, but it is the politicians who send people to war who are at fault. The soldiers who are sent to war are doing as they need to do.




As for my role-played situation, my point in case was to demonstrate that if a closely-knit community of U.S. troops were to get the notion of a way in which they could carry out a successful quell to Captain Dickhead in a situation where they are being lead like sheep to the slaughter, this would be infinitely more positive than the outcome involving the bleak reality of death because you agreed.

Not really. If it is in a wartime situation that they are dissenting, the consequences are likely to be pretty dire.


I don't think there's a human being alive on this planet who hasn't done something someone else told them to do and knew it was wrong anyway.

And lastly, yes, I agree with you that their outlook on life will be physically, mentally and emotionally distorted permanently for the attrocities that they have committed or been committed to. No matter how much stoicism a soldier claims that they may have, I refuse to believe that "shit happens" is going to be a sound defense everytime they duck and cover when they hear a car backfire.

I'm talking of solely the things they have seen...kids living on rubbish tips (as D talked about), having to deal with kids or civilians maimed by mines, bombs or whatever. The deprivation that people are living in and the things that people and children in particular are taking for granted, that we would be horrified by the thought of.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=12452

Just that in itself, being part of something so horrific, whether or not they are involved in the fighting, is enough to skew their outlook on life forever. They arent just in this for the thrills. Give them a break.

Sure bad things have happened. Yes they need to be dealt with. Yes they should be referred to as alleged until they have been proven by a Court of Law. It is not all military personnel that are responsible for such things, though...Remember that. most behave as they should.



And lastly, I really hope that no one has gotten the idea that I somehow don't support the troops?


It's that calling them bitches thing that does it...

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Funny hearing Dave talk about the "many" reasons we went to Iraq when he and others denied a whole bunch of those when I brought them up.


you may have me mixed up with somebody else warriorbird. I have said that from the start.

[/quote]As for my role-played situation, my point in case was to demonstrate that if a closely-knit community of U.S. troops were to get the notion of a way in which they could carry out a successful quell to Captain Dickhead in a situation where they are being lead like sheep to the slaughter, this would be infinitely more positive than the outcome involving the bleak reality of death because you agreed. [/quote]

No it would not. They would be either dead or in jail. Subversion is a National Security Crime. Maximum sentence, DEATH. Better to go on fighting the fight and perhaps living though it, if not you than your one friends in the battle field, than to sit guilty in a cell waiting for your execution.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Dave]

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Dave]

And lastly, I really hope that no one has gotten the idea that I somehow don't support the troops?

^

Lol. What a jackass

[DeV]

By being the most powerful nation on earth we become the ultimate weapon of mass destruction by default. Choosing not to use that power is just as important as choosing to wield it for the common good of the world. If the common good is not benefiting then we, in essence, are abusing those powers. I’ve been against this war from its inception. I’m not anti-war as a whole as I was among those in full support of the Gulf war but this fiascle our soldiers have been thrust into is beyond the realm of understanding in many aspects. The rationale for this war or lack of for that matter does nothing to subjugate those who are required to fulfill the duty of the assholes in charge. Do I agree with the sentiment that the men and women who serve are bitches? In no way, shape or form. They joined of their own free will, get paid to do a duty and do it well on most accounts even in cases of prisoner abuse. It is what they are trained to do. As we all should know by now not all who are currently serving in the war are in agreeance with our being there but their choices are limited and they serve in silence. I know this first hand as I’m sure there are some others out there who have friends or family who may be in Iraq but not agree with our reasons for being there.

>>IMHO, the two most noted political parties in this country can suck each other off, swallow cum and both rape each other anally with hats off. This action would serve to be more productive than the constant bickering that they have been doing for some time now.<<

I agree. It helps no one and hurts many of the citizens they are in fact being paid to represent along with values we entrust them to uphold and describe. Shining examples they are not.

[xtc]

Originally posted by RangerD1
See UN resolution 1441.
^

Have you seen it? It mentions alot more than WMD, like say the civil rights abuses in Iraq and his non compliance etc etc.


I find it extremely hilarious when people try and belittle the "Freeing" of Iraq has nothing more than a political soundbyte with no basis in reality when they themselves have probably never met more than a few Iraqi's in passing and have for damn sure never been to the country.



First off, yes I have read UN resolution 1441 . It is primarily concerned with WMD and weapons inpection compliance. The phrase civil rights abuse never occurs in the doucment. In one place only, it talks about UN resolution 688 which talks about repression of Iraq's civilian population. The rest of the resolution talks about weapons, and compliance with inspections. Out of over 3000 words in the resolution only a few lines talk about this repression.


Additionally the UN voted not to invade Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction were found.

"The freeing of Iraq?" what bullshit.

The nation is likely to fall into civil war or have a repressive Shia regime that will have close ties to Iran. Some of us knew more then a few Iraqis long before this war started.

[Keller]

Lol. What a jackass


^

OMG. What a tool

[Drew2]

One day the rest of you will realize as I did long ago.

Stanley = Warclaidhm + 4-5 years.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Tayre
One day the rest of you will realize as I did long ago.

Stanley = Warclaidhm + 4-5 years.

You can call Stanley an un-patriotic, pot-smoking asshole. But he is definately not retarded. That's not even fair.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Tayre
One day the rest of you will realize as I did long ago.

Stanley = Warclaidhm + 4-5 years. I disagree. As much as many may not agree with his opinion I see him in a completely different light than the one you mentioned above. Not even close.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Did you not see his first 1000 posts or something?

[Keller]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Did you not see his first 1000 posts or something?

Nope, I didn't.

[Warriorbird]

Thing is...Kevinhm doesn't have the real intelligence to flip like that or the social skills to make people actually consider what he's saying... and I'm not really complimenting Stanley here.

The phrase civil rights abuse never occurs in the doucment

^

Either you haven't read resolution 1441 or you are trying to engage in an issue of semantics. In any case, you are wrong. It was brought up numerous times, including resolution 1441. If you choose to ignore it than that's not my problem. (Read below)

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq

Originally posted by Dave
No it would not. They would be either dead or in jail. Subversion is a National Security Crime. Maximum sentence, DEATH. Better to go on fighting the fight and perhaps living though it, if not you than your one friends in the battle field, than to sit guilty in a cell waiting for your execution.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Dave]

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Dave]

Okay, let's say for a minute here that you are the voice of the army because you sport a uniform. You've claimed you work with intelligence. I feel that we use scare-tactics at home. You, an intelligence official, despite your stomach-churning lack of spelling are telling me that we also use them on the field? Can you use your intelligence and tell me why we are using Nazi-tactics as a way of keeping your head nodding? I am completely flustered.

Fuck.

This Bush ***** is a serious cuntmuffin, you know that? There was another army that used super specific targetting of its "perceived" enemies that kept on ending up changing its game-plan because merely the disposal techniques of said enemies became EXPENSIVE. Can you guess which army that was?

I like the fact that I am patronized more for talking about the troops than I am for the president. But holy shit, we can always talk about what a lot of dickheads Hitler was and his Nazis were too. People, in general, don't usually get flak for that.

Sheeeeeeeeeit.

And yes, I just made the comparison in case you're scratching your ass wondering.

I wasn't wondering *if* you made the comparison, I was wondering what crack you smoked to make it.

[CrystalTears]

Miliary personnel sign up to the service to serve their country and their leaders. Any of their leaders. It's not like they sign up and only serve under one administration.

And I seriously doubt that if they are sent into battle that some soldiers can sit down and revolt saying, "Nope. I'm not going. You can't make me." They choose to serve, they have to go. There are people out there who are against the war but who have to serve. I don't see why these people should be the butt of any malice. They are just doing their duty.

I bet that there were people serving under Hitler that didn't approve of what he was doing but had to serve under his command or suffer the consequences.

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell

Originally posted by Dave
No it would not. They would be either dead or in jail. Subversion is a National Security Crime. Maximum sentence, DEATH. Better to go on fighting the fight and perhaps living though it, if not you than your one friends in the battle field, than to sit guilty in a cell waiting for your execution.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Dave]

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Dave]

Okay, let's say for a minute here that you are the voice of the army because you sport a uniform. You've claimed you work with intelligence. I feel that we use scare-tactics at home. You, an intelligence official, despite your stomach-churning lack of spelling are telling me that we also use them on the field? Can you use your intelligence and tell me why we are using Nazi-tactics as a way of keeping your head nodding? I am completely flustered.


What Nazi tactic are you talking about?
I honestly do not know what your talking about.

[Warriorbird]

We violate international law all the damn time, D.

what international laws have we violated?

I am being serious here. Be honest about it, I am asking for the laws we have violated and how we have violated them. I want to know something aside from what you hear on tv which can easily be dabated from both sides. What charges have been filed against the United States.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Dave]

[Back]

Bush Sr. and co. have been charged with War Crimes (http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm) by an international body based on many treaties and protocals adopted globally with regards to war.

[Back]

Bill Clinton, Madalene Albright and William Cohen have been found guilty of war crimes (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17147) in regards to the Balkans.

What international body, and if so why have they not been arrested?

I am talking about serious charges and crimes not BS crap.


all i see are charges nothing about being guilty in your articles

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Dave]

[Warriorbird]

We've violated the Geneva Convention on our own populace as regards to chemical weapons (Waco), and exposed the people of the Aleutians to extreme radiation levels.

chemical weapons at waco? WHAT?
Shit its a crime to go though basic then I got CS gassed 5 or so times though the whole thing.

That still does not answer what I asked for. I am looking for the truth where is it. You say we have I want to see it. 10 or so soldiers commiting crimes does not make us guilty of war crimes. They are being punished for their crimes.
I am still waiting for an answer, though it will have to wait until I get back it seems.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Dave]

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Dave]

[Drew2]

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by Tayre
One day the rest of you will realize as I did long ago.

Stanley = Warclaidhm + 4-5 years.

You can call Stanley an un-patriotic, pot-smoking asshole. But he is definately not retarded. That's not even fair.

Actually, I wasn't really referring to his mental capacity.

I was referring to the fact that he trolls the boards almost daily looking for attention in any way he can get it. Why, I don't know. But his methodolgy is very similar to Warclaidhm's.

Regardless, I usually refrain from posting in any of his threads or responding to him, since he hasn't really done anything terribly wrong. I just find him annoying.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Tayre]

[Warriorbird]

The use of it violates the Convention. Outsourcing torture is another violation, which we send off to Guantanamo. You wouldn't accept anything even if directly quoted to you, however. Oh yeah.... there's that whole Iraq invasion bit.

Just as I thought.

[xtc]

Originally posted by RangerD1
The phrase civil rights abuse never occurs in the doucment

^

Either you haven't read resolution 1441 or you are trying to engage in an issue of semantics. In any case, you are wrong. It was brought up numerous times, including resolution 1441. If you choose to ignore it than that's not my problem. (Read below)

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq


I see you chopped my quote.

Yes I have read the whole document.

If you read my entire post you will see I mentioned that repression was mentioned. The phrase civil rights abuse doesn't occur in that quote nor in any other part of the document. That quote is what I was referring to. You may also note in a rather lengthly document of over 3000 word that those few lines are the only ones dedicated to repression. The rest of the document talks about Weapons and compliance with weapons inspections as I have already stated.

Oh and in case we all forgot no weapons were found.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by xtc]

"Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq"

"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein"

"Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance"



See non compliance is mentioned why dont you roll back and look at the other resolutions that the 1441 talks about. 687 and 688 might help you figure a few things out.

Big one is in bold, ceasefire violated, ironicly enough that means one can continue a war.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Dave]

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell

IMHO, I am glad that I live in a country that allows us to express these freedoms that people who actually fought meaningful wars for struggled to accomplish.

what war/s were meangingful?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by theotherjohn

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell

IMHO, I am glad that I live in a country that allows us to express these freedoms that people who actually fought meaningful wars for struggled to accomplish.

what war/s were meangingful?

In American History, I would say that 2 wars were indeed meaningful and "right":

Revolutionary War
WWII

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave
"Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq"

"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein"

"Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance"



See non compliance is mentioned why dont you roll back and look at the other resolutions that the 1441 talks about. 687 and 688 might help you figure a few things out.

Big one is in bold, ceasefire violated, ironicly enough that means one can continue a war.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Dave]

Yes as I mentioned in my previous post non-compliance is mentioned in the document.

Iraq did comply as they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and they had allowed UN inspectors in Iraq to verify this.

As the UN called the ceasefire and the UN adopted and passed this resolution it was up to the UN to decide whether or not to invade. Not that born again Christian Bush.

Did I mention no weapons of Mass Destruction were found?


BUSH & CO were dying to invade Iraq since the day afer 9-11. Reuters ran this story a while back.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/040320/137/2c3ra.html

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
We've violated the Geneva Convention on our own populace as regards to chemical weapons (Waco), and exposed the people of the Aleutians to extreme radiation levels.

what article of the Geneva Convention was violated?

[Keller]

Originally posted by Tayre

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by Tayre
One day the rest of you will realize as I did long ago.

Stanley = Warclaidhm + 4-5 years.

You can call Stanley an un-patriotic, pot-smoking asshole. But he is definately not retarded. That's not even fair.

Actually, I wasn't really referring to his mental capacity.

I was referring to the fact that he trolls the boards almost daily looking for attention in any way he can get it. Why, I don't know. But his methodolgy is very similar to Warclaidhm's.

Regardless, I usually refrain from posting in any of his threads or responding to him, since he hasn't really done anything terribly wrong. I just find him annoying.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Tayre]

Got'cha. That makes a lot more sense.

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by theotherjohn

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell

IMHO, I am glad that I live in a country that allows us to express these freedoms that people who actually fought meaningful wars for struggled to accomplish.

what war/s were meangingful?

In American History, I would say that 2 wars were indeed meaningful and "right":

Revolutionary War
WWII

Right on the money. But add the Civil War also.

[DeV]

:yeahthat: Was just about to quote and post but Backlash beat me to it. :cheers:

[Warriorbird]

Actually, not under an "article" per se, but prohibited in specific as an addendum to the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, TOJ.

More violations related to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo:

Prisoners of war may not be tortured mentally or physically, and no other form of coercion may be used during interrogation. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer must not be punished in any way. (Convention III, Art. 17)

Prisoners of war may not be tortured or coerced into admitting guilt during a judicial proceeding. (Convention III, Art. 99)

Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishment, imprisonment without daylight, and all forms of torture and cruelty are forbidden. (Convention III, Art. 87)

In no case may disciplinary penalties be inhuman, brutal or dangerous to the health of the internees. (Convention IV, Art. 119)

Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault is prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilians or military personnel. (Protocol I, Art. 75)

Things we've done internally:

Torture is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, both in cases of internal conflicts (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 1A), wounded combatants (Convention I, Art. 12), civilians in occupied territories (Convention IV, Art. 32), civilians in international conflicts (Protocol I, Art. 75, Sec. 2Ai) and civilians in internal conflicts (Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 2A).

The whole Iraq thing in general:



According to the Charter of the United Nations, every state has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of any state. ( Protocol I, Preamble )

The Geneva Conventions must not be construed as legitimizing or authorizing any act of aggression or any other use of force inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. ( Protocol I, Preamble)


Oh yeah, and the prior knowledge about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and some other things:

A superior who has information to the effect that a subordinate was committing or was going to commit a breach of the Geneva Conventions must take all feasible measures to prevent or repress the breach. If the superior fails to act, he or she can face penal discipline. (Protocol I, Art. 86, Sec. 2)

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Actually, not under an "article" per se, but prohibited in specific as an addendum to the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, TOJ.



here is the link to what you are talking about
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva01.htm

First we were not at war in Waco so again how does the Geneva convention apply.


Second enemy combatants are not prisoners of war so all that other stuff also does not apply

here is where I get all my information

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

edit to change or to of

[Edited on 2-11-2005 by theotherjohn]

[Warriorbird]

Err...I think you're confused. From that website itself. Hell yes it applies.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

[Warriorbird]

Saddam wasn't "at war" when he gassed the Kurds, either.

[Back]

Its safe to say America views all those treaties as a joke right now.

[Back]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Saddam wasn't "at war" when he gassed the Kurds, either.

Its even in question who (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5257.htm) did it.

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Saddam wasn't "at war" when he gassed the Kurds, either.


CS gas is non leathal and is used at regular basis on US personnel.

[Warriorbird]

The radiation we hit the Aleutians with is also non lethal.

Good thing international law is not binding and no country has ever adhered to it.

[Back]

Bummer.

I see you chopped my quote.

Yes I have read the whole document.

If you read my entire post you will see I mentioned that repression was mentioned. The phrase civil rights abuse doesn't occur in that quote nor in any other part of the document. That quote is what I was referring to. You may also note in a rather lengthly document of over 3000 word that those few lines are the only ones dedicated to repression. The rest of the document talks about Weapons and compliance with weapons inspections as I have already stated.

Oh and in case we all forgot no weapons were found.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by xtc]

I wasn't referring to how many words is dedicated to the issue. I was referring to your original comment



WMD was all Bush could cry 2 years ago and was the only legal reason to go into Iraq. See UN resolution 1441

So which is it?

Originally posted by theotherjohn

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell

IMHO, I am glad that I live in a country that allows us to express these freedoms that people who actually fought meaningful wars for struggled to accomplish.

what war/s were meangingful?

The ones in which we actually fought to defend our freedoms.

Originally posted by Tayre
One day the rest of you will realize as I did long ago.

Stanley = Warclaidhm + 4-5 years.

:lol:

Tayre = HIV + 4-5 years.

Originally posted by Backlash
Bummer.

Word.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Dave
chemical weapons at waco? WHAT?
Shit its a crime to go though basic then I got CS gassed 5 or so times though the whole thing.

That still does not answer what I asked for. I am looking for the truth where is it. You say we have I want to see it. 10 or so soldiers commiting crimes does not make us guilty of war crimes. They are being punished for their crimes.
I am still waiting for an answer, though it will have to wait until I get back it seems.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Dave]

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Dave]

You've always struck me as a decently inteligent kid. And god knows I am dyslexic as hell and often make posts full of errors -- but GOD DAMN. You edited that twice, and that's the best you could do?

I only bring it up because you write coherent posts in every other instance I've read.

[Warriorbird]

If you looked a little closer Dave, you'll see a number of those that have nothing to do with Abu Ghraib. Then again, I never gave you that much credit... which is why I didn't quote it initially. And D, you're correct... quite a few countries violate it....I was merely responding to someone who, "doubted it."

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by Dave
chemical weapons at waco? WHAT?
Shit its a crime to go though basic then I got CS gassed 5 or so times though the whole thing.

That still does not answer what I asked for. I am looking for the truth where is it. You say we have I want to see it. 10 or so soldiers commiting crimes does not make us guilty of war crimes. They are being punished for their crimes.
I am still waiting for an answer, though it will have to wait until I get back it seems.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Dave]

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Dave]

You've always struck me as a decently inteligent kid. And god knows I am dyslexic as hell and often make posts full of errors -- but GOD DAMN. You edited that twice, and that's the best you could do?

I only bring it up because you write coherent posts in every other instance I've read.

The edits were for content I think. Lack of sleep over the past few weeks is starting to get to me. I am worse than normal.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Dave
Lack of sleep over the past few weeks is starting to get to me. I am worse than normal.

Doesnt bode well for your active service, if posting on a message board is suffering due to your lack of beauty sleep.

[Edaarin]

In the United States, there are two judicial protections in place that are meant to protect the most basic rights we have as humans: the right to freedom of movement and the to freedom from torture. The criminal trial, and habeas corpus.

Between Bush and Ashcroft, both have been pushed to their limit and nearly compromised in the past 4 years. If anyone even thinks about bringing Lincoln into this debate, just stop now.

[xtc]

Originally posted by RangerD1


I see you chopped my quote.

Yes I have read the whole document.

If you read my entire post you will see I mentioned that repression was mentioned. The phrase civil rights abuse doesn't occur in that quote nor in any other part of the document. That quote is what I was referring to. You may also note in a rather lengthly document of over 3000 word that those few lines are the only ones dedicated to repression. The rest of the document talks about Weapons and compliance with weapons inspections as I have already stated.

Oh and in case we all forgot no weapons were found.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by xtc]

I wasn't referring to how many words is dedicated to the issue. I was referring to your original comment



WMD was all Bush could cry 2 years ago and was the only legal reason to go into Iraq. See UN resolution 1441

So which is it?


As I have mentioned before, in over 3000 words, repression was mentioned only once. The rest of the large document was dedicated to weapons of mass destruction and compliance to inspections.

It was a UN resolution. The UN voted not to invade Iraq. Iraq had not violated the resolution as it had no weapons of mass destruction and had allowed UN inspectors into Iraq. As such they were in compliance with the resolution. So I stand by my original comment.

Despite all the Repub spin. The following remains true.

The decision whether to invade or not was the UN's not Dubbya.

Iraq did not present an imminent threat to the world as they did not possess WMD, either bombs or biological weapons.

The war has cost over $153 Billion as of this post.

Many US soldiers and Iraq civilians have been killed.

There has not been a clear out come to this war.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell

:lol:

Tayre = HIV + 4-5 years.
WTF is that supposed to mean?

That HIV is a gay disease, duh.

- Arkans

[DeV]

Originally posted by Snapp

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell

:lol:

Tayre = HIV + 4-5 years.
WTF is that supposed to mean?
Probably his reply to this:


Originally posted by Tayre
One day the rest of you will realize as I did long ago.

Stanley = Warclaidhm + 4-5 years.

[Alarke]

His reply to that which was unintelligent and uncalled for. After finally reading through this entire thread, all I can say is that I am disappointed with anyone that feels they understand these situations. I have no fucking clue what is really happening or why, and I have never claimed to. I listen to the news, and read the paper, and I take it with a grain of salt. You that listen to the news and believe that all information is given, or claim this whole WMD crap just show how shallow minded you are. I feel no one here is looking at the main idea, the fact that no civilians here have any clue, you can call soldiers "bitches" and whine about why things are being done, but all you are doing is complaining about what you also don't understand.

To those in Iraq, thank you, the support is more than I can offer. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes... I'd honestly probably cry myself to sleep at night were I over there, but if it came down to it, I would not run, because none of you did, and the best thank you I can show for that is doing the same in return. On that note, I think you understand more than anyone here could ever comprehend...but I think there is always more than what you are told, or what you can see. I think maybe someday we will look back and understand, but sitting here bitching about it online calling those trying to make sense of everything bitches does no one good. I'm glad you're able to express your thoughts, but without common sense or intelligence, it is just words.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Revolutionary War
WWII Why WWII and not WWI?

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Dave
Lack of sleep over the past few weeks is starting to get to me. I am worse than normal.

Doesnt bode well for your active service, if posting on a message board is suffering due to your lack of beauty sleep.

Look Nieninque, I dont go around insulting you every fifth post you make.

You have little to no clue what I do on a daily basis, what my responsibilities are, what my schedule is, or anything about me. I am sure you care as little about me as I do to know anything about you. I do find interesting however, how quickly you resort to insulting when somebody has a differing opinion. I believe you're over 20 years old. Ask yourself, is the way you act really befitting of the level of maturity you need to succeed in the world?

[Edited on 2-11-2005 by Dave]

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Alarke
His reply to that which was unintelligent and uncalled for. After finally reading through this entire thread, all I can say is that I am disappointed with anyone that feels they understand these situations. I have no fucking clue what is really happening or why, and I have never claimed to. I listen to the news, and read the paper, and I take it with a grain of salt. You that listen to the news and believe that all information is given, or claim this whole WMD crap just show how shallow minded you are. I feel no one here is looking at the main idea, the fact that no civilians here have any clue, you can call soldiers "bitches" and whine about why things are being done, but all you are doing is complaining about what you also don't understand.

To those in Iraq, thank you, the support is more than I can offer. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes... I'd honestly probably cry myself to sleep at night were I over there, but if it came down to it, I would not run, because none of you did, and the best thank you I can show for that is doing the same in return. On that note, I think you understand more than anyone here could ever comprehend...but I think there is always more than what you are told, or what you can see. I think maybe someday we will look back and understand, but sitting here bitching about it online calling those trying to make sense of everything bitches does no one good. I'm glad you're able to express your thoughts, but without common sense or intelligence, it is just words.

:heart: :clap:

[Warriorbird]

World War I was senseless madness in general.

[Alarke]

The main reason people feel World War I was senseless and maddening is because it was the first use of large scale trench warfare which caused some serious problems. The war, however, was extremely important.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Alarke
The main reason people feel World War I was senseless and maddening is because it was the first use of large scale trench warfare which caused some serious problems. The war, however, was extremely important.

Besides the fact that millions of kids died and it drastically changed the course of modern history, why was it important?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Alarke
The main reason people feel World War I was senseless and maddening is because it was the first use of large scale trench warfare which caused some serious problems. The war, however, was extremely important. From what I remember, trench warfare was an extremely old style of warfare (although I'll be the first to admit I didn't pay a lot of attention during Western Civ).

I don't understand how WWII was any less mad than WWI, either. When I look at how the Soviets and the Chinese each lost more people than the total losses for WWI, it doesn't suggest sensibility.

Well, I'm glad Poland became a country because of it, that's one reason I like WWI.

- Arkans

[Edited on 2-11-2005 by Arkans]

[Warriorbird]

The main reason people think World War I was senseless and maddening is it was fought over tremendously nebulous reasons.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Alarke
You that listen to the news and believe that all information is given, or claim this whole WMD crap just show how shallow minded you are.

This whole weapons of mass destruction "crap" was the reason that Bush decided to invade another sovereign nation, after the UN turned down his request.

You will remember Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with his "intelligence reports" that "showed" Iraq was an imminent threat as they possesed Weapons of Mass destruction. As such the USA couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to do their job.

After Bush & Co realised he wasn't going to find anything his Spin factory started inventing all these other reasons for the war.

I don't blame the soldiers. I do blame Bush and his administration.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Arkans
That HIV is a gay disease, duh.

- Arkans

Oh, I understood it just fine. It's just a fucked up, piece of shit thing to say. :thumbsdown:

Shit, being compared to Warclaidhm make me say something that I would never fucking say.

I am very sorry. That is really not what I believe and am pretty sure it's the same for any sexual preference types.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Arkans
That HIV is a gay disease, duh.

- Arkans

Bullshit! Tell that to the babies who are born with it year after year, Arkans. Sometimes, you say things that are just downright stupid!

[peam]

Someone needs to quit listening to 'Reverend' Phelps.

[Edited on 2-12-2005 by peam]

um Harmnone, Peam he was translating for Stanly

XTC, you said the repression of civil liberties was never mentioned in the case for war, and that I should look at 1441, then you say it was only one part of it.

That was my point. I could care less about what you think of an ineffectual organization. The UN has rarely been able to hold up to its side of the bargain in any capactiy, and yet people some so flabbergasted that people don't take it seriously when it says sternly 13 to <insert sissy voice here> stop that.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
um Harmnone, Peam he was translating for Stanly Umm, no he wasn't. Now, had Tayre adamently declared himself to be GAY that would probably fly. In any case, he hasn't but anyone with 2 brain cells can tell it was said in reference to being compared to someone as scathingly retarded as Warclaidhm. Perhaps, a better analogy could have been used.

Reading and comprehension. Continue working on it.

Um, he has DeV.

[DeV]

Bisexual does not equal gay. Unless there was some new epiphany I wasn't aware of.

[Bobmuhthol]

Bisexual people are gay. Maybe you forgot that bisexual men have sex with men. And gay men have sex with men. Seems pretty alike to me.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Bisexual people are gay. Maybe you forgot that bisexual men have sex with men. And gay men have sex with men. Seems pretty alike to me. Yes, because if he is also attracted to women he is obviously gay. Thanks for your input.

[HarmNone]

Bisexual men also have sex with women. Gay men don't.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Yes, because if he is also attracted to women he is obviously gay.>>

Gay doesn't mean "not attracted to the opposite sex." It means "attracted to the same sex." Which bisexuals are.

<<Bisexual men also have sex with women. Gay men don't.>>

I didn't say gay men are bisexual, I said bisexual men are gay.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I agree with Bob. I don't think of the term "gay" as derogatory either, so really it's not that big a deal to me.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
I didn't say gay men are bisexual, I said bisexual men are gay. Bisexual also means having both male and female reproductive organs.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Bisexual also means having both male and female reproductive organs.>>

Great, that's irrelevant.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I agree with Bob. I don't think of the term "gay" as derogatory either, so really it's not that big a deal to me.

I'll reserve my thinking on that one until some of the gays here have weighed in on the question. :)

[Edited on 2-12-2005 by HarmNone]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<Bisexual also means having both male and female reproductive organs.>>

Great, that's irrelevant. False.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<False.>>

This statement is incorrect.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<False.>>

This statement is incorrect. Because you're the authority on this subject. I understand.

[Bobmuhthol]

I didn't know there was an authority of relevance in a discussion, but I guess if there is, it's you. Congratulations, retard. You're not even worth my typing.

[HarmNone]

From Dictionary.com

bi·sex·u·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-sksh-l)
adj.
Of or relating to both sexes.

1. Having both male and female reproductive organs; hermaphroditic.
2. Botany. Denoting a single flower that contains functional staminate and pistillate structures; perfect.
3. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex.

n.
1. A bisexual organism; a hermaphrodite.
2. A bisexual person.

Common usage favors the third definition.

[Bobmuhthol]

Making me right. Thanks.

[HarmNone]

Making you partially right, Bob.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I agree with Bob. I don't think of the term "gay" as derogatory either, so really it's not that big a deal to me.

I'll reserve my thinking on that one until some of the gays here have weighed in on the question. :)

I saw no use of the term 'gay' that I take exception with. I'm not even certain what reference to it is under question. Though it is being bandied about inaccurately...

Gay does not mean 'having sex with other men'. Same sex behavior does not indicate sexual orientation. A much better litmus test is, as was used already, attraction. I also read one commentary where the author suggested that it was who you are capable of falling in love with that indicates whether someone is gay, bi or straight and that made a lot of sense.

Just as someone is capable of eating a steak despite the fact that they dislike the taste of beef, so too can someone engage in same sex behavior while still being straight.

And that's probably enough of being off topic for one thread.

Raven

[DeV]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
I didn't know there was an authority of relevance in a discussion, but I guess if there is, it's you. Congratulations, retard. You're not even worth my typing. Yet you felt the need to share this. Again, my compliments to you. The authority on gay and bisexual behavior.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<The authority on gay and bisexual behavior.>>

......

<<Bisexual also means having both male and female reproductive organs.>>

This has nothing to do with gay and bisexual behavior you FUCKING IDIOT. That is why I said it is irrelevant. Because it is.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by HarmNone

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I agree with Bob. I don't think of the term "gay" as derogatory either, so really it's not that big a deal to me.

I'll reserve my thinking on that one until some of the gays here have weighed in on the question. :)

I saw no use of the term 'gay' that I take exception with. I'm not even certain what reference to it is under question. Though it is being bandied about inaccurately...

Gay does not mean 'having sex with other men'. Same sex behavior does not indicate sexual orientation. A much better litmus test is, as was used already, attraction. I also read one commentary where the author suggested that it was who you are capable of falling in love with that indicates whether someone is gay, bi or straight and that made a lot of sense.

Just as someone is capable of eating a steak despite the fact that they dislike the taste of beef, so too can someone engage in same sex behavior while still being straight.

And that's probably enough of being off topic for one thread.

Raven

So, you're saying that bisexual people are not gay, really. They're simply the sexual equivalent of ambidextrous? :D

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
So, you're saying that bisexual people are not gay, really. They're simply the sexual equivalent of ambidextrous? :D

Yes :) Just like someone who eats chicken but no beef is not a vegetarian despite the fact they share some of the preferences of vegetarians. Such is my opinion anyway. I make no claim to being the ultimate authority on what is Truth... Something I recommend to others.

Raven

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I make no claim to being the ultimate authority on what is Truth... Something I recommend to others.>>

By others, you of course mean DeV, who seems to think that hermaphrodites have something to do with this.

[HarmNone]

Makes sense to me, Ravenstorm. That's the way I always thought it to be, but I'm not gay, so never really felt like I knew much about the issue. Thanks for the insight. :)

[Bobmuhthol]

<<but I'm not gay, so never really felt like I knew much about the issue.>>

I was going to bring this up earlier but had no reason to. How is it that someone sucking dick makes them more credible than anyone else? Do I know more about what heterosexuality is than homosexuals because I fuck 15 bitches a day? Or can I redefine what a Caucasian is simply because I am one?

[HarmNone]

You can't redefine anything, Bob, unless that thing changes. However, I believe that a heterosexual person has a deeper understanding of what it means to be heterosexual than a homosexual does, and vice versa.

There's more to the terms than just their definitions. There is the emotional aspect to be dealt with. I cannot deal with the emotional aspects of being gay, or bisexual, since I am not either. Therefore, I am interested in the opinions of those with more experience in those areas than I have. I value the opinions of people like Snapp, Ravenstorm, DeV, and a few others here when the issue is gays. I value the opinions of people like CrystalTears, and a couple of others, when the issue is bisexuality.

I don't know everything, and am woefully lacking in some areas. By seeking information from those who have experience in areas where I have none, I seek to learn.

[Bobmuhthol]

Carry on, then. I'm much happier without knowing how the gays and bisexuals feel about being gay.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
...when the issue is bisexuality.

You'd be surprised at the amount of grief bisexuals can get... from gays. Some act like bisexuals are having their cake and eating it too and resent them that they're able to 'pass' in straight society.

It reminds me of how biracial people were treated years ago (and maybe even today too?) especially if they were obviously 'mixed'. Not white enough for one side, not black/asian/etc enough for the other. People can be assholes. But the point is it's something only someone who's experienced it can accurately describe even though others might have some idea about it.

Raven

[Alarke]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Alarke
You that listen to the news and believe that all information is given, or claim this whole WMD crap just show how shallow minded you are.

This whole weapons of mass destruction "crap" was the reason that Bush decided to invade another sovereign nation, after the UN turned down his request.

You will remember Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with his "intelligence reports" that "showed" Iraq was an imminent threat as they possesed Weapons of Mass destruction. As such the USA couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to do their job.

After Bush & Co realised he wasn't going to find anything his Spin factory started inventing all these other reasons for the war.

I don't blame the soldiers. I do blame Bush and his administration.
Thank you for showing yourself to be shallow minded. I do believe the part of my rant you quoted was the part stating... if you think you understand the whole reason, or listen to the media and believe what is being said, you have no common sense. You don't know everything, and I have the impression you go to news websites and regurgitate the nearest WMD crap you can find. Stop using this as a solid fact, as you have no idea what you are really talking about, thank you.

P.S. I am not saying I am any more credible than a 5 year old on this situation, but the fact that anyone thinks they "figured it out" is just full of crap.

[Warriorbird]

So... folks shouldn't seek out for their own understanding of events? Shouldn't question? I think you're requesting shallow mindedness, whether someone's been misled or not. That's un-American.

[Edited on 2-12-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

Originally posted by Alarke
Thank you for showing yourself to be shallow minded. I do believe the part of my rant you quoted was the part stating... if you think you understand the whole reason, or listen to the media and believe what is being said, you have no common sense. You don't know everything, and I have the impression you go to news websites and regurgitate the nearest WMD crap you can find. Stop using this as a solid fact, as you have no idea what you are really talking about, thank you.

P.S. I am not saying I am any more credible than a 5 year old on this situation, but the fact that anyone thinks they "figured it out" is just full of crap.

Ok, what am I missing here? You just sternly told someone to stop being mindless then to stop looking for answers?

WMDs were not found. Plain and simple. I’m not even talking about what that implies, just that its true and most people understand it as such.

So not only have you contradicted yourself, you did it on the basis that a fact is false?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
WMDs were not found. Plain and simple. I’m not even talking about what that implies, just that its true and most people understand it as such.Excellent. Not at all what Alarke was responding to:
This whole weapons of mass destruction "crap" was the reason that Bush decided to invade another sovereign nation, after the UN turned down his request.

You will remember Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with his "intelligence reports" that "showed" Iraq was an imminent threat as they possesed Weapons of Mass destruction. As such the USA couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to do their job. Strike you as particularly factual? Objective?
You don't know everythingThis is a universally true description of humanity. While it doesn't mean conclusively that xtc can not discern all of Bush's motives, it is generally accepted that people are not telepathic. Do you disagree?

[Alarke]

I in no way told people to stop looking for answers, i am simply telling them that's it's unfair for them to think they KNOW the answers simply from watching television or reading the papers. If you misunderstood me, I apologize, I did not contradict myself in any way. I simply believe that it is unfair to call another person a "bitch" or an idiot because they have seen the information handed to them differently. No one knows what is right, and no one will in the short run.

[Back]

Not any one person knows everything. Thats a given. Unless someone got a hold of Nostrodomos skull and drank from it.

I do think people are telepathic. Not to the degree you suggest, however.

The only thing I see in xtc’s statement that I would change is the word “reason” with “excuse”. Otherwise, its exactly what happened. I think most people who were following along would agree.

For what reasons the administration decided to do it IS in question. Particularly because of this situation. Sure, there is a lot of speculation, but there are also people out there actually investigating.

Generally I would agree its not cool to call someone a bitch or an idiot for any reason.

Exactly how you feel it happened backlash.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<I make no claim to being the ultimate authority on what is Truth... Something I recommend to others.>>

By others, you of course mean DeV, who seems to think that hermaphrodites have something to do with this. It is included in the textbook definition of bisexuality. It also doesn't mean that everyone who is bisexual is also a hermaphrodite.

[Artha]

If you're using bisexual to mean someone with both sets of reproductive organs, that's exactly what it means.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<It is included in the textbook definition of bisexuality. It also doesn't mean that everyone who is bisexual is also a hermaphrodite.>>

You aren't comparing two things, you're using a different meaning of the same word. I mean, if I have to specify which meaning of the word that I'm using, I will. You'll still be wrong.

Bisexuals in the sense of being sexually attracted to both sexes are gay.

What difference did that make again?

[Bobmuhthol]

Actually, there are more flaws than I pointed out in your retarded view of logic, but I won't bother going into detail.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Actually, there are more flaws than I pointed out in your retarded view of logic, but I won't bother going into detail. Flaws can be pointed out in your lack of knowledge on the subject all together.

In the non-heterosexual lifestyle the terms are very much different in their meaning. You can't change that.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Bisexuals in the sense of being sexually attracted to both sexes are gay.

I see how Bob is defining the word 'gay' and he is quite wrong. He's defining it as being attracted to the same gender and that is fine as far as it goes except for the little fact that it's an incomplete definition. The complete definition would be that gay is being attracted to your own gender instead of the opposite gender. Instead of, not in addition to.

But of course, Bob knows this and is just arguing because he likes to argue even when he knows he's wrong. Which is why ignoring him is the best course of action.

Raven

[Bobmuhthol]

<<He's defining it as being attracted to the same gender and that is fine as far as it goes except for the little fact that it's an incomplete definition. The complete definition would be that gay is being attracted to your own gender instead of the opposite gender. Instead of, not in addition to.

But of course, Bob knows this and is just arguing because he likes to argue even when he knows he's wrong. Which is why ignoring him is the best course of action.>>

Actually, the definition of gay is simply being attracted to the same sex, and I do not know that I am wrong. I don't see how you can TELL me what I know and TELL me that I'm wrong, and at the same time complain that I "just like to argue."

[Tsa`ah]

And we know Bob's definitions and interpretations are law.

:jerkit:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Bisexuals in the sense of being sexually attracted to both sexes are gay.

I see how Bob is defining the word 'gay' and he is quite wrong. He's defining it as being attracted to the same gender and that is fine as far as it goes except for the little fact that it's an incomplete definition. The complete definition would be that gay is being attracted to your own gender instead of the opposite gender. Instead of, not in addition to.

But of course, Bob knows this and is just arguing because he likes to argue even when he knows he's wrong. Which is why ignoring him is the best course of action.

Raven Agreed.

[Bobmuhthol]

Originally posted by HarmNone
From Dictionary.com

bi·sex·u·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-sksh-l)
adj.
Of or relating to both sexes.

1. Having both male and female reproductive organs; hermaphroditic.
2. Botany. Denoting a single flower that contains functional staminate and pistillate structures; perfect.
3. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex.

n.
1. A bisexual organism; a hermaphrodite.
2. A bisexual person.

Common usage favors the third definition.


If nobody disagrees with this (by the way, nobody has so any succeeding post that does disagree is not to be regarded under any circumstance), then the following is untouchable:

gay ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g)
adj. gay·er, gay·est
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
Given to social pleasures.
Dissolute; licentious.


:) Please take it up with The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language if you feel the definition is "incomplete." It's good to see that you think you made the word just because you took a shot in the mouth.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<And we know Bob's definitions and interpretations are law.>>

So you're saying Ravenstorm's MADE UP definition is better than my FACTUAL one. Likewise..

And we know Ravenstorm's definitions and interpretations are law. :STUPIDFUCKINGMASTURBATIONEMOTICON:

[Edited on 2-13-2005 by Bobmuhthol]