Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: BRUCE on March 04, 2007, 05:00:46 PM
-
Recently, we've had BayGBM here trivialising the death of US soldiers in Iraq as 'wasted' lives. His basis for this claim was that Saddam Hussein was of no threat to American lives, and therefore the Iraq war was unjust. Clearly, I disagree with this point of view, and take great offence to those that would attempt to belittle the unimaginably brave efforts of the coalition forces. Here's why I feel this way:
Saddam Hussein Financed Terrorists in Israel:
Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.
“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.
I'll let you visit my link to view the appalling photos of death that resulted from this funding.
Saddam's Iraq Harboured Known Terrorists
Terror mastermind Abu Nidal also enjoyed his hospitality.
Abu Nidal, Iraqi-supported terrorist
Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” 13 Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization — a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Among other savage acts, Nidal’s group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Vienna’s airport, killing 19 people.
You may know Abu Nidal as the man that created the bombs for the 1993 World Trade Centre bombings. Yes, Saddam housed a man that had played the key role in the death of 6 Americans.
Here are some other Americans he helped kill:
The New York Times reports that Abu Nidal's Fatah Revolutionary Council murdered the following 17 Americans, at a minimum:
Americans killed in the Abu Nidal Organization's December 27, 1985 attack on Rome's airport:
*John Buonocore III, 20, of Wilmington, Delaware
*Frederick Gage of Madison, Wisconsin
*Natasha Simpson, 11, of New York
*Don Maland of New Port Richey, Florida
*Elena Tomarello, 67, of Naples, Florida
The New York Times, December 29, 1985
American executed during ANO's 1986 hijacking of a Pan Am jet at Karachi, Pakistan's airport:
*Rajesh Kumar of Huntington Beach, California
The New York Times, September 7, 1986
Americans slaughtered in ANO's September 8, 1974 bombing of a TWA jet over the Ionian Sea en route from Israel to Greece, killing all 88 aboard:
*Eitan Bard of Tuckahoe, New York
*Seldon Bard of Tuckahoe, New York
*Ralph H. Bosh of Madison, Connecticut
*Jon L. Cheshire of Old Lyme, Connecticut
*Jeremiah Hadley of Poughkeepsie, New York
*Katherine Hadley Michel of Poughkeepsie, New York
*Frederick Hare of Bernardsville, New Jersey
*Margaret Hare of Bernardsville, New Jersey
*Don H. Holliday of Mahwah, New Jersey
*Dr. Frederick Stohlman of Newton, Massachusetts
*Mrs. Frederick Stohlman of Newton, Massachusetts
The New York Times, September 10, 1974
And the list goes on. I could provide you all with an even more extensive list of the ways in which Saddam's tyrannical regime helped murder innocent Americans and others, or you could just visit this excellent website and read for yourself:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/ (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)
My point here is, of course, that anyone who believes Saddam Hussein was of no threat to Americans (or other innocent civilians) is seriously mistaken. Saddam was assisting known terrorists from their Middle East cradle to their eventual graves.
America was right to remove this despot, and the world is a far safer place without him. Dead American soldiers are heroes in every right, and do not deserve to have their sacrifices trivialised.
-
I can respect the alarm produced when viewing grizzly photographs and hearing of a $25K bounty for terrorist acts.
However, this not substantial, nor is it all that significant.
Let's start with the $25K awarded to Palestinian suicide bombers.
here's what it says:
Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.
Now, unless the USA is a province of Israel that was not directed at America.
Even if it was, did anything ever happen as a result? Did an army of palistinians run over here and start suicide bombing us? NO. Al Queda from Afghanistan took care of that and we took care of them.
Next let's talk about Abu Nidal.
He's the one of the accomplices who help in the 1993 WTC bombing resulting in the death of 6 Americans. And he entered Iraq in 1999? After he had a hand in a string of terrorist acts from 1974 to 1986?
Maybe we should have just pressured Saddam to hand him over in stead of incurring 400 billion in debt and counting, 3000+ American deaths and counting, and 20,000 wounded while currently embroiled in an insurgency and near civil war?
Those six lives were worth all that?
While we are at this: Did more people die from cancer, car accidents, drive bys, waiting in an emergency room, heart attacks, malpractice, unsafe public transportation, obesity, shark attack, CHILD ABUSE, Spousal abuse, etc.. than 6 people? why haven't we committed 400 billion to stop all those things?
Saddam is a mobster. Plain and simple. Mobsters can be easily bought off. He was bought off by his lust for power and money which he had and wasn't going to do anything to let go of it.
He was an easy target for a sales pitch that so many suckers bought into.
You don't think Saudi has some similar skeletons in their closets? What about Israel spying on us? and Syria? And the Vatican? Fuck it, they are worth more than 6 deaths let's invade! (sarcasm)
Bottom line is this:
It's the people who are not swayed by power and riches that you must worry about:
People like the ones running Iran, who will kill you on principle and believe they will have 40 virgins as a reward in heaven.
Saddam could have been used to help with Iran. But Iraq's oil was more valuable. I might be incline to agree, but just wait till Iran has operational nuclear missiles, then we should decide.
(let the fire storm begin! and someone actually said this was a liberal board! lol)
-
Recently, we've had BayGBM here trivialising the death of US soldiers in Iraq as 'wasted' lives. His basis for this claim was that Saddam Hussein was of no threat to American lives, and therefore the Iraq war was unjust. Clearly, I disagree with this point of view, and take great offence to those that would attempt to belittle the unimaginably brave efforts of the coalition forces. Here's why I feel this way:
Saddam Hussein Financed Terrorists in Israel:
Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.
“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.
I'll let you visit my link to view the appalling photos of death that resulted from this funding.
Saddam's Iraq Harboured Known Terrorists
Terror mastermind Abu Nidal also enjoyed his hospitality.
Abu Nidal, Iraqi-supported terrorist
Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” 13 Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization — a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Among other savage acts, Nidal’s group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Vienna’s airport, killing 19 people.
You may know Abu Nidal as the man that created the bombs for the 1993 World Trade Centre bombings. Yes, Saddam housed a man that had played the key role in the death of 6 Americans.
Here are some other Americans he helped kill:
The New York Times reports that Abu Nidal's Fatah Revolutionary Council murdered the following 17 Americans, at a minimum:
Americans killed in the Abu Nidal Organization's December 27, 1985 attack on Rome's airport:
*John Buonocore III, 20, of Wilmington, Delaware
*Frederick Gage of Madison, Wisconsin
*Natasha Simpson, 11, of New York
*Don Maland of New Port Richey, Florida
*Elena Tomarello, 67, of Naples, Florida
The New York Times, December 29, 1985
American executed during ANO's 1986 hijacking of a Pan Am jet at Karachi, Pakistan's airport:
*Rajesh Kumar of Huntington Beach, California
The New York Times, September 7, 1986
Americans slaughtered in ANO's September 8, 1974 bombing of a TWA jet over the Ionian Sea en route from Israel to Greece, killing all 88 aboard:
*Eitan Bard of Tuckahoe, New York
*Seldon Bard of Tuckahoe, New York
*Ralph H. Bosh of Madison, Connecticut
*Jon L. Cheshire of Old Lyme, Connecticut
*Jeremiah Hadley of Poughkeepsie, New York
*Katherine Hadley Michel of Poughkeepsie, New York
*Frederick Hare of Bernardsville, New Jersey
*Margaret Hare of Bernardsville, New Jersey
*Don H. Holliday of Mahwah, New Jersey
*Dr. Frederick Stohlman of Newton, Massachusetts
*Mrs. Frederick Stohlman of Newton, Massachusetts
The New York Times, September 10, 1974
And the list goes on. I could provide you all with an even more extensive list of the ways in which Saddam's tyrannical regime helped murder innocent Americans and others, or you could just visit this excellent website and read for yourself:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/ (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)
My point here is, of course, that anyone who believes Saddam Hussein was of no threat to Americans (or other innocent civilians) is seriously mistaken. Saddam was assisting known terrorists from their Middle East cradle to their eventual graves.
America was right to remove this despot, and the world is a far safer place without him. Dead American soldiers are heroes in every right, and do not deserve to have their sacrifices trivialised.
Excellent Bruce. I completely agree. This is a point I've tried to make many times too. It is one of the reasons (sponsoring terrorism) Saddam needed to go.
I also completely agree that our soldiers are heroes.
-
Excellent Bruce. I completely agree. This is a point I've tried to make many times too. It is one of the reasons (sponsoring terrorism) Saddam needed to go.
I also completely agree that our soldiers are heroes.
A quick little thing before this potential storm gets out of hand:
I don't at the moment think pulling out is the answer.
Those troops needs America's full support right now and everyone of them deserve respect and thanks from every American citizen.
-
nobody said saddam wasn't an asshole who supported terror.
however, he didn't fvck with the US, and he had nothing to do with 9/11.
Is the world better without him? Of course.
Was removing him worth 3000 American lives? Hell no.
-
A quick little thing before this potential storm gets out of hand:
I don't at the moment think pulling out is the answer.
Those troops needs America's full support right now and everyone of them deserve respect and thanks from every American citizen.
I'm actually conflicted about a pullout. One of my close friends there is really disillusioned and that has a big impact on how I view our role. This is a guy with 20+ years in the service.
I agree about the support and respect that our troops need. That support and respect cannot include telling them their comrades' lives were wasted.
-
Recently, we've had BayGBM here trivialising the death of US soldiers in Iraq as 'wasted' lives. His basis for this claim was that Saddam Hussein was of no threat to American lives, and therefore the Iraq war was unjust. Clearly, I disagree with this point of view, and take great offence to those that would attempt to belittle the unimaginably brave efforts of the coalition forces. Here's why I feel this way:
Saddam Hussein Financed Terrorists in Israel:
Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.
“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.
I'll let you visit my link to view the appalling photos of death that resulted from this funding.
Saddam's Iraq Harboured Known Terrorists
Terror mastermind Abu Nidal also enjoyed his hospitality.
Abu Nidal, Iraqi-supported terrorist
Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” 13 Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization — a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Among other savage acts, Nidal’s group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Vienna’s airport, killing 19 people.
You may know Abu Nidal as the man that created the bombs for the 1993 World Trade Centre bombings. Yes, Saddam housed a man that had played the key role in the death of 6 Americans.
Here are some other Americans he helped kill:
The New York Times reports that Abu Nidal's Fatah Revolutionary Council murdered the following 17 Americans, at a minimum:
Americans killed in the Abu Nidal Organization's December 27, 1985 attack on Rome's airport:
*John Buonocore III, 20, of Wilmington, Delaware
*Frederick Gage of Madison, Wisconsin
*Natasha Simpson, 11, of New York
*Don Maland of New Port Richey, Florida
*Elena Tomarello, 67, of Naples, Florida
The New York Times, December 29, 1985
American executed during ANO's 1986 hijacking of a Pan Am jet at Karachi, Pakistan's airport:
*Rajesh Kumar of Huntington Beach, California
The New York Times, September 7, 1986
Americans slaughtered in ANO's September 8, 1974 bombing of a TWA jet over the Ionian Sea en route from Israel to Greece, killing all 88 aboard:
*Eitan Bard of Tuckahoe, New York
*Seldon Bard of Tuckahoe, New York
*Ralph H. Bosh of Madison, Connecticut
*Jon L. Cheshire of Old Lyme, Connecticut
*Jeremiah Hadley of Poughkeepsie, New York
*Katherine Hadley Michel of Poughkeepsie, New York
*Frederick Hare of Bernardsville, New Jersey
*Margaret Hare of Bernardsville, New Jersey
*Don H. Holliday of Mahwah, New Jersey
*Dr. Frederick Stohlman of Newton, Massachusetts
*Mrs. Frederick Stohlman of Newton, Massachusetts
The New York Times, September 10, 1974
And the list goes on. I could provide you all with an even more extensive list of the ways in which Saddam's tyrannical regime helped murder innocent Americans and others, or you could just visit this excellent website and read for yourself:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/ (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)
My point here is, of course, that anyone who believes Saddam Hussein was of no threat to Americans (or other innocent civilians) is seriously mistaken. Saddam was assisting known terrorists from their Middle East cradle to their eventual graves.
America was right to remove this despot, and the world is a far safer place without him. Dead American soldiers are heroes in every right, and do not deserve to have their sacrifices trivialised.
sad rummie and bush 1 were friends with a terrorist eh...
-
I'm actually conflicted about a pullout. One of my close friends there is really disillusioned and that has a big impact on how I view our role. This is a guy with 20+ years in the service.
I agree about the support and respect that our troops need. That support and respect cannot include telling them their comrades' lives were wasted.
i understand that. But if one thinks the iraq should have never happened what would you call their sacrifices?
I wouldn't call them wasted. I believe they died fighting for something they believed in. They believe they were doing the right thing. That's the way it is in every war.
I believe the war unnecessary. 1 year or so after the invasion fo iraq i was in Las Vegas drinking it up with a bunch of Marines and their wives who were back from Iraq and they doing some deal where they get all dressed up and have some ball, can't remember what it was called. Anyways before i left, i personally thank everyone of them from what they were doing, the sacrifices they were making. i meant every word.
I can do this even though i don't believe we should have invaded Iraq.
-
I'm actually conflicted about a pullout. One of my close friends there is really disillusioned and that has a big impact on how I view our role. This is a guy with 20+ years in the service.
I agree about the support and respect that our troops need. That support and respect cannot include telling them their comrades' lives were wasted.
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude...
Pull out of the cities and guard the border, oil pipeline/infrastructure, and US bases in Iraq.
Allow the Iraqis to get rough in the cities without US supervision and CNN cameras. They will succeed.
We stop losing men, but we don't sacrific the regional resources and position we've worked this hard for.
it's a reasonable compromise.
-
From an article published on March 17, 2005.
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm)
-
What did they die for? Tell the families and history that they died liberating and keeping Iraq safe.
But they need to stop dying. Leave the cities. There will be this same lever of violence in 5 years. We've throw everything we legally could at it for 4+ years, and nothing has changed.
IMO, they died for oil and regional control. In your opinion, maybe it was freedom. Whatever, it's history now. But for god's sake, stop losing US forces. Pull em out of the cities.
-
What foolishness - let me deal with this appalling diatribe piece by piece:
I can respect the alarm produced when viewing grizzly photographs and hearing of a $25K bounty for terrorist acts.
However, this not substantial, nor is it all that significant.
Oh, if you say so. For everyone else, a crazed tyrant using his government’s funds to reward and encourage acts of terror is a horrendous act of despotism. Not ‘significant’? Maybe if you don’t mind the thought of your fellow citizens being blown to smithereens for nothing more than sitting down for a meal.
Let's start with the $25K awarded to Palestinian suicide bombers.
here's what it says:
Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.
Now, unless the USA is a province of Israel that was not directed at America.
If you have ever seen a map of the World, you may notice that Israel is far more proximate to Iraq than the mighty US. With further investigation, you may even find out they’re one of the US’s closest allies. Add to this Saddam’s harbouring of the bomb artist from WTC 1993 and your argument evaporates as quickly as your common sense has. But hey, who cares if American civilians get slaughtered outside of their home country, right?
Next let's talk about Abu Nidal.
He's the one of the accomplices who help in the 1993 WTC bombing resulting in the death of 6 Americans. And he entered Iraq in 1999? After he had a hand in a string of terrorist acts from 1974 to 1986?
Maybe we should have just pressured Saddam to hand him over in stead of incurring 400 billion in debt and counting, 3000+ American deaths and counting, and 20,000 wounded while currently embroiled in an insurgency and near civil war?
Those six lives were worth all that?
Actually, as my post illustrated to you, he’s been integral in the terror driven deaths of far more than six Americans. Again, your tendency to downplay your fellow citizens being dismembered by explosives is worrying, to say the least. Does it occur to you that if Saddam would be seen to support such men, that he would certainly use more powerful weapons given the chance? Or are you foolish enough to believe he had no intention of killing, or supporting the killing, of more Americans?
While we are at this: Did more people die from cancer, car accidents, drive bys, waiting in an emergency room, heart attacks, malpractice, unsafe public transportation, obesity, shark attack, CHILD ABUSE, Spousal abuse, etc.. than 6 people? why haven't we committed 400 billion to stop all those things?
We don’t commit massive amounts of resources to the above mentioned already? Allow me to explain the difference. A person that dies from cancer in America does so in one of the World’s finest medical systems. They die as a free person from something that is most likely an indiscriminate disease. And it’s pseudo-logic at its best if your position is that we shouldn’t stop terrorists from killing our innocent because we’re not doing quite enough about ahem, shark attacks.
An American in the WTC 1993 that is dismembered by explosives dies as a person that is a victim of that very freedom. They are annihilated by those that would seek to strip you and I of every right we have to coexist in this World – something you seem oddly comfortable with. On top of this, Saddam Hussein supported these people with finance and safe housing.
Saddam is a mobster. Plain and simple. Mobsters can be easily bought off. He was bought off by his lust for power and money which he had and wasn't going to do anything to let go of it.
Your seemingly strong inclination to defend Saddam as a mere ‘mobster’ is sickening. No mobster that I know of has ever had the means to use WMD to kill thousands of his fellow citizens. Saddam was a villainous despot, and your casual brushing off of his evil ways speaks wonders of your character.
You don't think Saudi has some similar skeletons in their closets? What about Israel spying on us? and Syria? And the Vatican? Fuck it, they are worth more than 6 deaths let's invade! (sarcasm)
You’ll no doubt be able to point out the last time Israel or (cough) the Vatican was involved in the cold blooded murder of Americans. If not, what an outrageously idiotic thing to say.
Bottom line is this:
It's the people who are not swayed by power and riches that you must worry about:
People like the ones running Iran, who will kill you on principle and believe they will have 40 virgins as a reward in heaven.
Saddam could have been used to help with Iran. But Iraq's oil was more valuable. I might be incline to agree, but just wait till Iran has operational nuclear missiles, then we should decide.
I am all for disarming Iran, but if you’re trying to tell me Saddam shouldn’t have been removed from power because Iran is worse, then you’re lost.
-
Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.
The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.
The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.
http://www.drudge.com/news/90987/big-oil-takes-over-iraq (http://www.drudge.com/news/90987/big-oil-takes-over-iraq)
-
nobody said saddam wasn't an asshole who supported terror.
however, he didn't fvck with the US
I just proved he did have a whole lot to do with this: you should change your position.
-
From an article published on March 17, 2005.
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm)
Guys, we NEEDED a large oil reserve. Cheney worked like crazy during the Clinton Admin to set one up using his firm Haliburton, with the taleban. Why do you think Bush chose Cheney?
This was long planned - the PNAC 2000 document wrote about it too. It is what it is, world energy resource mgmt.
-
i understand that. But if one thinks the iraq should have never happened what would you call their sacrifices?
I wouldn't call them wasted. I believe they died fighting for something they believed in. They believe they were doing the right thing. That's the way it is in every war.
I believe the war unnecessary. 1 year or so after the invasion fo iraq i was in Las Vegas drinking it up with a bunch of Marines and their wives who were back from Iraq and they doing some deal where they get all dressed up and have some ball, can't remember what it was called. Anyways before i left, i personally thank everyone of them from what they were doing, the sacrifices they were making. i meant every word.
I can do this even though i don't believe we should have invaded Iraq.
These brave men and women are serving their country. Those who died, died serving their country. There is no higher calling than to lay down your life in service for your country. It doesn't matter whether any of us believe the war is just or not. A slew of people believe the Vietnam war was improper and we lost tens of thousands of mainly young men. Were those lives wasted? You can find people in this country (often the same people or same types of people) who disagree with every military action we have been involved in. That has no impact whatsoever on whether the soldiers who lost their lives on this conflicts are "wasted" deaths.
I'm not questioning your commitment to our armed forces at all.
-
I just proved he did have a whole lot to do with this: you should change your position.
Those 1985 deaths? Um, he was on Reagan's payroll at the time.
-
Those 1985 deaths? Um, he was on Reagan's payroll at the time.
He was? Prove it then - you absolutely know you can't.
Also, he harboured a terrorists that bombed you WTC in 1993, is that not aiding terror? Is that not helping kill US citizens?
AND, he paid off terrorists that killed Americans in Israel, what is unclear to you about this?
-
A slew of people believe the Vietnam war was improper and we lost tens of thousands of mainly young men. Were those lives wasted? You can find people in this country (often the same people or same types of people) who disagree with every military action we have been involved in. That has no impact whatsoever on whether the soldiers who lost their lives on this conflicts are "wasted" deaths.
When you fight a war and lose tens of thousands and achieve no military objectives, what would you call it?
-
Guys, we NEEDED a large oil reserve. Cheney worked like crazy during the Clinton Admin to set one up using his firm Haliburton, with the taleban. Why do you think Bush chose Cheney?
This was long planned - the PNAC 2000 document wrote about it too. It is what it is, world energy resource mgmt.
I thought the we invaded Iraq because Hussein was a threat to us here in the USA. Didn't we oust Saddam because he had WMD's and was harboring terrorists?
-
I thought the we invaded Iraq because Hussein was a threat to us here in the USA. Didn't we oust Saddam because he had WMD's and was harboring terrorists?
He had WMD at one point and he harboured terrorists, as I've shown above.
-
When you fight a war and lose tens of thousands and achieve no military objectives, what would you call it?
I have no idea, because I cannot recall a war in which the United States military achieved "no military objectives."
-
He was? Prove it then - you absolutely know you can't.
Also, he harboured a terrorists that bombed you WTC in 1993, is that not aiding terror? Is that not helping kill US citizens?
AND, he paid off terrorists that killed Americans in Israel, what is unclear to you about this?
you're pathetic, man.
I thought the we invaded Iraq because Hussein was a threat to us here in the USA. Didn't we oust Saddam because he had WMD's and was harboring terrorists?
it was a good storyline that made churchgoing folks proud to support.
C'mon, you know if you we said "we need to secure these resources for longterm US global supremacy", people wouldn't understand. Completely necessary but they don't get it. So you need a lie that lets them sleep.
-
you're pathetic, man.
Golly, is that your defence? I hate to say it 240, but you just got exposed.
-
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said President Bush's former ghost writer.
"It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."
Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=233 (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=233)
-
I have no idea, because I cannot recall a war in which the United States military achieved "no military objectives."
LOL... dude, do you consider the vietnam war a success?
Iraq is vietnam II.
-
He had WMD at one point and he harboured terrorists, as I've shown above.
when people have WMDs...we dont invade em
case in point N korea..
you dont go fucking with someone that can blow ya skyhigh..
wonder why he didn't use em when he country ws getting blown to bits.. :-\
-
Golly, is that your defence? I hate to say it 240, but you just got exposed.
dude, believe whatever you wish. Exposed? HA!
you said that NO ONE in the US believed that Saddam would take chem agents form his own universities during time of war/unrest because "they were not his express property".
Dude, he's a dictator in two wars. You're not exactly showing common sense here, man.
-
dude, believe whatever you wish. Exposed? HA!
you said that NO ONE in the US believed that Saddam would take chem agents form his own universities during time of war/unrest because "they were not his express property".
Dude, he's a dictator in two wars. You're not exactly showing common sense here, man.
240, did Saddam aid terrorists that were directly involved in killing American citizens?
-
when people have WMDs...we dont invade em
case in point N korea..
you dont go fucking with someone that can blow ya skyhigh..
wonder why he didn't use em when he country ws getting blown to bits.. :-\
I don't want to defend NK because I strongly believe in disarming them, but can you show me a time when North Koreans have been involved in terror acts against Americans?
Also, the recent result for NK to peacefully disarm falls into the category of another win for the Americans.
-
I'd post a link to what Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said about Bush but that would be beating a dead horse.
I think everyone is in agreement that Bush had planned to invade Iraq long before 9/11 and that the WMD and Harboring Terrorist angle was merely an excuse used to achieve his objective.
-
I'd post a link to what Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said about Bush but that would be beating a dead horse.
I think everyone is in agreement that Bush had planned to invade Iraq long before 9/11 and that the WMD and Harboring Terrorist angle was merely an excuse used to achieve his objective.
Do you agree that Saddam was funding and harbouring terrorists?
-
I'd post a link to what Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said about Bush but that would be beating a dead horse.
I think everyone is in agreement that Bush had planned to invade Iraq long before 9/11 and that the WMD and Harboring Terrorist angle was merely an excuse used to achieve his objective.
Bruce, I concede that yes, Saddam did have a part in attacks which killed Americans.
now, will YOU concede that Bush planned to invade Iraq before 2001?
-
Bruce, I concede that yes, Saddam did have a part in attacks which killed Americans.
now, will YOU concede that Bush planned to invade Iraq before 2001?
No, he may well have considered it, though. And as I have shown, he was spot on to consider Saddam a worthy target.
Saddam helped the men that killed dozens of Americans in terrorist acts. His removal and death is a triumph for freedom.
-
No, he may well have considered it, though. And as I have shown, he was spot on to consider Saddam a worthy target.
Saddam helped the men that killed dozens of Americans in terrorist acts. His removal and death is a triumph for freedom.
Okay. When do you believe Bush and his team decided they were going to invade Iraq?
-
Okay. When do you believe Bush and his team decided they were going to invade Iraq?
Around about the time they announced it to the World. I don't think it's particularly relevant anyway, as I would have supported removing Saddam at any point during the 90's or indeed 00's
-
Oh, if you say so. For everyone else, a crazed tyrant using his government’s funds to reward and encourage acts of terror is a horrendous act of despotism. Not ‘significant’? Maybe if you don’t mind the thought of your fellow citizens being blown to smithereens for nothing more than sitting down for a meal.
Can you re-read the article BRUCE? where does it say he was paying people to commit suicide acts on AMERICANS? Israelis are not my fellow citizens. Do you know the difference? Can you tell the difference?
Is there a difference to you? Or is this just part of you trying to win the debate?
Are Israleis AMERICAN citizens? yes or no?
If you have ever seen a map of the World, you may notice that Israel is far more proximate to Iraq than the mighty US. With further investigation, you may even find out they’re one of the US’s closest allies. Add to this Saddam’s harbouring of the bomb artist from WTC 1993 and your argument evaporates as quickly as your common sense has.
Are you saying we should go to war with anyone who harbors a person who has killed American citizens? We should go an invade then all right now shouldn't we? (classic fear based alarmist thinking that leads to fascism and or dictatorships)
Is one fucking bomb artist worth 400 billion and 3000 lives and 20K wounded? fuck no. But obviously it is to a war monger fear based alarmist who's looking for any reason to justify their killing.
That's where your argue goes no where. Explain to me how's it's worth all that. Fact is, it's a candy ass reason to go an invade a country and it wasn't even the reason to begin with. You can run around all day long talking about how bad this Abu is but won't mean jack shit. all this for one terrorists? What a stupid argument. You are better than than that BRUCE.
We don’t commit massive amounts of resources to the above mentioned already? Allow me to explain the difference. A person that dies from cancer in America does so in one of the World’s finest medical systems. They die as a free person from something that is most likely an indiscriminate disease. And it’s pseudo-logic at its best if your position is that we shouldn’t stop terrorists from killing our innocent because we’re not doing quite enough about ahem, shark attacks.
How about you go ask a doctor who is involved in the research to cure cancer how much 400 billion would have help their cuase. Warren buffet just donated 40 billion to charities. He could have built 40 state of the art NFL football stadiums with that money. But what do we have? we have a couple dozen deaths from this ABU we have avenged! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Try again BRUCE.
Actually, as my post illustrated to you, he’s been integral in the terror driven deaths of far more than six Americans. Again, your tendency to downplay your fellow citizens being dismembered by explosives is worrying, to say the least. Does it occur to you that if Saddam would be seen to support such men, that he would certainly use more powerful weapons given the chance? Or are you foolish enough to believe he had no intention of killing, or supporting the killing, of more Americans?
Of course he'd love to kill a few Americans....ONLY IF, it would mean he could retain his power.
Explain to me BRUCE how he could have retained his power if he launched some sort of attack on the USA?
EXPLAIN IT BRUCE.
No way in hell. Therefore he wouldn't have done it. You see, he's like us, He's a capitalist. Not like Osama, who's a religious nut.
An American in the WTC 1993 that is dismembered by explosives dies as a person that is a victim of that very freedom. They are annihilated by those that would seek to strip you and I of every right we have to coexist in this World – something you seem oddly comfortable with. On top of this, Saddam Hussein supported these people with finance and safe housing.
Why would i be comfortable with that? Other then you trying to put words in my mouth? Of course i'm not comfortable with that..... but i'm smart enough to know BULL SHIT when i see it. The reasons for the Iraq invasion was BULL SHIT. Are you smart enough to see that? Guess not. WE would have been more prudent to establish permanent bases in Afghanistan and watch Iran closely ready to act when needed. Now we are a little over extended. BRILLIANT!
face facts BRUCE Saddam wasn't and isn't the only one. fact is, he was probably harboring less than syria, iran, pakistan, and saudi arabia. But go on believing we were prudent in invading him based on those reasons of harboring terrorists.
Your seemingly strong inclination to defend Saddam as a mere ‘mobster’ is sickening. No mobster that I know of has ever had the means to use WMD to kill thousands of his fellow citizens. Saddam was a villainous despot, and your casual brushing off of his evil ways speaks wonders of your character.
You mean Mobsters don;t go killing fellow italians who threaten there power? HAHAHAHA BRUCE go watch Good fellas, God Father, watch some documentaries on the MOB and perhaps you'll wake up from your fear based dream.
You’ll no doubt be able to point out the last time Israel or (cough) the Vatican was involved in the cold blooded murder of Americans. If not, what an outrageously idiotic thing to say.
i was being sarcastic. And who knows, Rumor is the vatican help quite a few Nazi's escape in WW2. we should invade shouldn't we?
-
Around about the time they announced it to the World. I don't think it's particularly relevant anyway, as I would have supported removing Saddam at any point during the 90's or indeed 00's
So you KNOW they didn't plan on attacking Saddam before 2001, but you can't tell us when he did?
And it's not relevant? Really?
-
I don't want to defend NK because I strongly believe in disarming them, but can you show me a time when North Koreans have been involved in terror acts against Americans?
Also, the recent result for NK to peacefully disarm falls into the category of another win for the Americans.
Well isn't the leader of NK nuts too? isn't he a madman? Com on guys! We need to invade! how can we let this madman continue to run a country! He'll attack the USA OMG, he could even attack Israel!
We did it to Saddam now we must do it to him!'
HE's a MADMAN!
-
Can you re-read the article BRUCE? where does it say he was paying people to commit suicide acts on AMERICANS? Israelis are not my fellow citizens. Do you know the difference? Can you tell the difference?
Is there a difference to you? Or is this just part of you trying to win the debate?
Are Israleis AMERICAN citizens? yes or no?
Are you saying we should go to war with anyone who harbors a person who has killed American citizens? We should go an invade then all right now shouldn't we? (classic fear based alarmist thinking that leads to fascism and or dictatorships)
Is one fucking bomb artist worth 400 billion and 3000 lives and 20K wounded? fuck no. But obviously it is to a war monger fear based alarmist who's looking for any reason to justify their killing.
That's where your argue goes no where. Explain to me how's it's worth all that. Fact is, it's a candy ass reason to go an invade a country and it wasn't even the reason to begin with. You can run around all day long talking about how bad this Abu is but won't mean jack shit. all this for one terrorists? What a stupid argument. You are better than than that BRUCE.
How about you go ask a doctor who is involved in the research to cure cancer how much 400 billion would have help their cuase. Warren buffet just donated 40 billion to charities. He could have built 40 state of the art NFL football stadiums with that money. But what do we have? we have a couple dozen deaths from this ABU we have avenged! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Try again BRUCE.
Of course he'd love to kill a few Americans....ONLY IF, it would mean he could retain his power.
Explain to me BRUCE how he could have retained his power if he launched some sort of attack on the USA?
EXPLAIN IT BRUCE.
No way in hell. Therefore he wouldn't have done it. You see, he's like us, He's a capitalist. Not like Osama, who's a religious nut.
Why would i be comfortable with that? Other then you trying to put words in my mouth? Of course i'm not comfortable with that..... but i'm smart enough to know BULL SHIT when i see it. The reasons for the Iraq invasion was BULL SHIT. Are you smart enough to see that? Guess not. WE would have been more prudent to establish permanent bases in Afghanistan and watch Iran closely ready to act when needed. Now we are a little over extended. BRILLIANT!
face facts BRUCE Saddam wasn't and isn't the only one. fact is, he was probably harboring less than syria, iran, pakistan, and saudi arabia. But go on believing we were prudent in invading him based on those reasons of harboring terrorists.
You mean Mobsters don;t go killing fellow italians who threaten there power? HAHAHAHA BRUCE go watch Good fellas, God Father, watch some documentaries on the MOB and perhaps you'll wake up from your fear based dream.
i was being sarcastic. And who knows, Rumor is the vatican help quite a few Nazi's escape in WW2. we should invade shouldn't we?
Erm, right. When you learn not to hurl expletives and abuse I'll get round to answering you, okay?
Good to know your developed opinions on geopolitics are dervived from watching 'Goodfellas' and 'The Godfather'.
Good luck with that.
-
LOL... dude, do you consider the vietnam war a success?
Iraq is vietnam II.
What? That's not what you asked. You asked about a war, clearly talking about Iraq, where we achieved "no military objectives." The primary objective in Iraq was removing Saddam. That has been done. So, trying to claim we achieved "no military objectives" in Iraq makes no sense.
-
So you KNOW they didn't plan on attacking Saddam before 2001, but you can't tell us when he did?
And it's not relevant? Really?
Did I say I know that? I'm relying on the information we have, which indicates exactly that. I'm not George Bush, surprisingly, so I can't tell you the exact second he considered invading Iraq as a possibility. Sorry about that.
And it's not relevant to me, as I said. I always supported the removal of Saddam as a tyrant.
-
Erm, right. When you learn not to hurl expletives and abuse I'll get round to answering you, okay?
Good to know your developed opinions on geopolitics are dervived from watching 'Goodfellas' and 'The Godfather'.
Good luck with that.
Nice deflection: whining about profanity.......lol
Great way to avoid having to answer realistic questions that blow your entire premise out of the water.
If that's all you had i guess your points are sunk.
(i know they are not, you still have some fight in you.)
BTW are you saying mobsters don't kill Americans or they don't kill Italian Americans?
Go ahead and deflect again.
-
Well isn't the leader of NK nuts too? isn't he a madman? Com on guys! We need to invade! how can we let this madman continue to run a country! He'll attack the USA OMG, he could even attack Israel!
We did it to Saddam now we must do it to him!'
HE's a MADMAN!
You conveniently avoided my reasonable question. I'll assume you have no response worth noting.
-
Nice deflection.
Great way to avoid having to answer realistic questions that blow your entire premise out of the water.
If that's all you had i guess your points are sunk.
(i know they are not, you still have some fight in you.)
Calm down and pose your questions in a reasonable manner and I shall answer them all.
-
Calm down and pose your questions in a reasonable manner and I shall answer them all.
oh stop it.
if you can't debate any longer because you have nothing left just admit it.
:)
-
Calm down and pose your questions in a reasonable manner and I shall answer them all.
BTW, stop trying to switch the focus of the debate. That's stuff works on some people here, but not me.
Be a man mate.
-
This whole discussion about the value of American lives, in addition to being morbid, is pretty meaningless IMO. No conflict, whether you believe the cause is just or not, is worth a single American life. That's not the proper way to view conflicts and the sacrifices that the members of our armed forces make. These men and women voluntarily go into military service with the full understanding their service may require the sacrifice of their lives.
-
BTW, stop trying to switch the focus of the debate. That's stuff works on some people here, but not me.
Be a man mate.
I'll go ahead an assume this means you have no relevant questions to pose of me, okay?
-
This whole discussion about the value of American lives, in addition to being morbid, is pretty meaningless IMO. No conflict, whether you believe the cause is just or not, is worth a single American life. That's not the proper way to view conflicts and the sacrifices that the members of our armed forces make. These men and women voluntarily go into military service with the full understanding their service may require the sacrifice of their lives.
Cept that guy in hawaii! He's getting CM'ed right?
-
This whole discussion about the value of American lives, in addition to being morbid, is pretty meaningless IMO. No conflict, whether you believe the cause is just or not, is worth a single American life. That's not the proper way to view conflicts and the sacrifices that the members of our armed forces make. These men and women voluntarily go into military service with the full understanding their service may require the sacrifice of their lives.
The reason the Left believes war is avoidable along with human sacrifice is that it also believes there aren't actually people in this World that are capable of murdering for the most inane reasons. The Left believes even madmen can be reasoned with, as Ozmo demonstrates.
-
I'll go ahead an assume this means you have no relevant questions to pose of me, okay?
Com'on BRUCE stop being a wuss.
did i curse at you? did i call you names? did i hurt your feelings? ::)
Man up, get back on the horse, stop trying to change the game and respond.
I have faith in you.
Do you want me to help a bit?
I can give you a part of the argument you should be using right now if you like.
-
Com'on BRUCE stop being a wuss.
did i curse at you? did i call you names? did i hurt your feelings? ::)
Man up, get back on the horse, stop trying to change the game and respond.
I have faith in you.
Do you want me to help a bit?
I can give you a part of the argument you should be using right now if you like.
Rather than attempting to engage me in your absurd sillyness, why not join the rest of the adults in seasoned and logical debate?
-
Cept that guy in hawaii! He's getting CM'ed right?
"Lt." Watada. The coward who betrayed his oath and sent his subordinates in harm's way while he sits behind a desk in comfy Fort Lewis, Washington. He'll get his. Hopefully, he'll be joining Headhunter in Kansas this summer. :)
-
Rather than attempting to engage me in your absurd sillyness, why not join the rest of the adults in seasoned and logical debate?
oh....so now you are using the "absurd sillyness" and "join everyone else in a logical debate card?"
How about you say you can't answer the questions and you are running away?
-
but can you show me a time when North Koreans have been involved in terror acts against Americans?
can u show me that saddam ws?
o wait ..your evidence..pfft..
tell me my man..why ws the only flight allowed out of the US ws of people of the osama family, after 911?
i mean i woulda grounded their asses and questioned em..
why?
saddam ws killing his people..why did we give a flying fuck?
i mean polpot murdered tonnes of his..
ok ok forget all of that..since ya prolly dont know who polpot ws..
how about this..
lets say saddam ws in bed with terrorists..
wouldn't it make sence to go after osama before we went after saddam?
...here is something you wont believe but i do..Osama is prolly already dead...however an alive osama is more $ than a dead one
-
can u show me that saddam ws?
o wait ..your evidence..pfft..
tell me my man..why ws the only flight allowed out of the US ws of people of the osama family, after 911?
i mean i woulda grounded their asses and questioned em..
why?
saddam ws killing his people..why did we give a flying fuck?
i mean polpot murdered tonnes of his..
ok ok forget all of that..since ya prolly dont know who polpot ws..
how about this..
lets say saddam ws in bed with terrorists..
wouldn't it make sence to go after osama before we went after saddam?
...here is something you wont believe but i do..Osama is prolly already dead...however an alive osama is more $ than a dead one
Careful, you used profanity in your response.
That can be used as a excuse not to answer your debate questions and eventually wuss out all together. :)
Imagine if you cursed directly at him? OMG!!! :o :o :o :o
-
Beware of the Profanity police
OR
you can use your "get out of a debate free card" based on someone else using profanity.
That's lame a as one legged kangaroo.
;D
-
Careful, you used profanity in your response.
That can be used as a excuse not to answer your debate questions and eventually wuss out all together. :)
Imagine if you cursed directly at him? OMG!!! :o :o :o :o
want me to re post bruces PM to me when he asked me why i hated america cause i made an anti zionist thread? ;D
-
Beware of the Profanity police
OR
you can use your "get out of a debate free card" based on someone else using profanity.
That's lame a as one legged kangaroo.
;D
Ozmo,
I find your actions as Moderator to be shocking and out of line. You have overstepped the boundaries of how a Moderator should act and I'm calling for a new Moderator. I am reporting you to Ron and I demand you step down as Moderator and I demand that a conservative Moderator be put in power. This place is over run with liberals and I demand that conservatives have equal representation. And While you're at it take Berserker with you.
;D
-
tell me my man..why ws the only flight allowed out of the US ws of people of the osama family, after 911?
i mean i woulda grounded their asses and questioned em..
You're a lying moron, as I've shown before, so I'm not sure why I should dignify you with a response. But, here's proof you're lying once again:
Saudi Departures from United States
Deceits 11-14
Moore is guilty of a classic game of saying one thing and implying another when he describes how members of the Saudi elite were flown out of the United States shortly after 9/11.
If you listen only to what Moore says during this segment of the movie—and take careful notes in the dark—you’ll find he’s got his facts right. He and others in the film state that 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country after Sept. 13.
The date—Sept. 13—is crucial because that is when a national ban on air traffic, for security purposes, was eased
But nonetheless, many viewers will leave the movie theater with the impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the White House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were still grounded. This false impression is created by Moore’s failure, when mentioning Sept. 13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had been eased by then. The false impression is further pushed when Moore shows the singer Ricky Martin walking around an airport and says, "Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens."
But the movie fails to mention that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left. And the independent 9/11 commission has reported that "each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure."
Try not to use Michael Moore as your point of reference next time, okay?
-
want me to re post bruces PM to me when he asked me why i hated america cause i made an anti zionist thread? ;D
I'm sure they'd far rather hear how you lied about just how many PMs I have sent you. Would you like that too?
-
wait ..WHY WS ANY OF THE BIN LADIN ALLOWED TO LEAVE REGARDLESS OF THE DATE??
...as long as it ws after 911
do tell?
-
Ozmo,
I find your actions as Moderator to be shocking and out of line. You have overstepped the boundaries of how a Moderator should act and I'm calling for a new Moderator. I am reporting you to Ron and I demand you step down as Moderator and I demand that a conservative Moderator be put in power. This place is over run with liberals and I demand that conservatives have equal representation. And While you're at it take Berserker with you.
;D
the funny part is, I didn't even call him any names even though he made a bunch of indirect insinuations regarding my character.
whatever though, it wasn't that hard of a debate for him to do in his side.
guess he wasn't up to it so he cheesed out.
look he's calling someone a lying moron now lol, oh the hypocracy.....(that's worm on on a hook for you bruce) ;)
-
wait ..WHY WS ANY OF THE BIN LADIN ALLOWED TO LEAVE REGARDLESS OF THE DATE??
...as long as it ws after 911
do tell?
The better question is why you deliberately repeated a popular lie.
-
The better question is why you deliberately repeated a popular lie.
i'll ask again...
why ws ANY of the bin laden family allowed to leave after 911?
you dont have an answer... :)
-
i'll ask again...
why ws ANY of the bin laden family allowed to leave after 911?
you dont have an answer... :)
Actually, I'm not quite finished embarrassing you. Here's the 9/11 Commission's views on it:
Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country….we have found that the request came to the attention of Richard Clarke and that each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.
No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.
The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.
The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches.
The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion.
Really, if you want me to keep going on you, I can.
-
yawn.
more fear based dribble.
::)
-
yawn.
more fear based dribble.
::)
You need to change the bait. That worm you used must have stopped wiggling.
Why don't you toss a 87 MPH fastball over the middle of the plate and see what happens.
P.S. Spring Training brings on baseball metaphors.
-
Bottom line:
Bruce will always believe the US delivered the goods to iraqi schools during wartime for only good purposes, and the majority of people on earth will believe otherwise.
Saddam was an asshole and the world is better with him gone - but whether his removal was worth 3100 US lives, 100+k dead iraqis, and 400 billion dollars is up for debate.
US firms ARE taking iraqi oil now at unfair locked rates, which is stealing.
The war will end when the oil pipeline is completed.
Anything else is just bullshit words from people trying to prove their own justification system.
-
Bottom line:
Bruce will always believe the US delivered the goods to iraqi schools during wartime for only good purposes, and the majority of people on earth will believe otherwise.
Actually, you'll believe the US gave Saddam Anthrax and Mustard Gas - which is a complete falsity.
-
Now, does anyone actually question the facts I have delivered here, or is everyone busy trying to belittle and insult?
-
Bottom line:
Bruce will always believe the US delivered the goods to iraqi schools during wartime for only good purposes, and the majority of people on earth will believe otherwise.
Saddam was an asshole and the world is better with him gone - but whether his removal was worth 3100 US lives, 100+k dead iraqis, and 400 billion dollars is up for debate.
US firms ARE taking iraqi oil now at unfair locked rates, which is stealing.
The war will end when the oil pipeline is completed.
Anything else is just bullshit words from people trying to prove their own justification system.
this will be interesting to see if this actually happens. I'm not saying it won't, but i'm waiting to see if it does.
additionally: war is rarely declared for the reasons we are told. It shouldn't take too much smarts to realize this. There are always underneath the BS the true reasons the perpetrators don't tell you.
-
Now, does anyone actually question the facts I have delivered here, or is everyone busy trying to belittle and insult?
::)
pot, kettle
-
Actually, you'll believe the US gave Saddam Anthrax and Mustard Gas - which is a complete falsity.
dude, you're naive.
no one here will defend your position that "NO ONE in the US believed Saddam would use the agents we sent to his universities, because they weren't his express property".
Cause it's just naive.
-
this will be interesting to see if this actually happens. I'm not saying it won't, but i'm waiting to see if it does.
additionally: war is rarely declared for the reasons we are told. It shouldn't take too much smarts to realize this. There are always underneath the BS the true reasons the perpetrators don't tell you.
last week, pentagon #2 man said the war will end in Oct 2008. Pipeline will be done in fall 2008.
this shit is so elementary, guys. Plan all along was to have it done right when Bush leaves office. The dems will lose their 'end the war' card 3 weeks before election day.
-
dude, you're naive.
no one here will defend your position that "NO ONE in the US believed Saddam would use the agents we sent to his universities, because they weren't his express property".
Cause it's just naive.
'Naive' is your new 'understand', isn't it, 240? It's basically the adjective you use when you're devoid of facts and debate, which happens more than you’d like to admit.
The facts are, you claimed the US gave Saddam Mustard Gas and Anthrax. You were wrong. I stated the facts and supported the Senate's and the UN's decisions to exonerate the US Government of any wrongdoing. Do you have any facts to put forth that dispute this?
-
'Naive' is your new 'understand', isn't it, 240? It's basically the adjective you use when you're devoid of facts and debate, which happens more than you’d like to admit.
The facts are, you claimed the US gave Saddam Mustard Gas and Anthrax. You were wrong. I stated the facts and supported the Senate's and the UN's decisions to exonerate the US Government of any wrongdoing. Do you have any facts to put forth that dispute this?
You said NO ONE IN THE US GOVT BELIEVED SADDAM WOULD TAKE THE AGENTS WE GAVE HIS SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T HIS EXPRESS PROPERTY.
You said a murderous dictator wouldn't use bio or chems because stealing is wrong.
-
You said NO ONE IN THE US GOVT BELIEVED SADDAM WOULD TAKE THE AGENTS WE GAVE HIS SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T HIS EXPRESS PROPERTY.
You said a murderous dictator wouldn't use bio or chems because stealing is wrong.
That's not my quote, so that everyone is aware.
And I didn't say the below part either - which is entirely innacurate.
If you had a valid argument, you wouldn't have such a need to imagine things I'd said, would you Rob?
240, do you not know how to use the 'quote' function?
-
That's not my quote, so that everyone is aware.
And I didn't say the below part either - which is entirely innacurate.
If you had a valid argument, you wouldn't have such a need to imagine things I'd said, would you Rob?
240, do you not know how to use the 'quote' function?
Clarify then :)
Please tell us why we sent these materials to iraqi institutions while the dictator had two wars on his hands.
Please share your position too. Not 3 pages of cites. YOUR belief.
-
Clarify then :)
Please tell us why we sent these materials to iraqi institutions while the dictator had two wars on his hands.
Please share your position too. Not 3 pages of cites. YOUR belief.
Better yet, since you so inaccurately misquoted me (if you can even call it that) you can go ahead and find what I've said previously on this issue. I'll not entertain your deceptions.
I've been into deep detail about this with you before, Rob, and you know where I stand.
For anyone else interested, or if they need clarification on this matter from me, I'll respond to any PMs.
-
Better yet, since you so inaccurately misquoted me (if you can even call it that) you can go ahead and find what I've said previously on this issue. I'll not entertain your deceptions.
I've been into deep detail about this with you before, Rob, and you know where I stand.
For anyone else interested, or if they need clarification on this matter from me, I'll respond to any PMs.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAA
YOU REFUSE TO STATE YOUR POSITION AGAIN!!!
hahaha you will only answer on PM now! damn, pathetic dude.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
YOU REFUSE TO STATE YOUR POSITION AGAIN!!!
hahaha you will only answer on PM now! damn, pathetic dude.
Again? Show where, without making up quotes this time.
Do you agree that you falsified my position above? If so, you understand why I won't entertain you.
UPDATE:
For everyone else, I've clarified again and again what my position is on this, which is more than easily available if you search my topic on 'Iraq/US Arms Deceit'. 240 is indulging himself in silly misquotes and falsities, again.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
YOU REFUSE TO STATE YOUR POSITION AGAIN!!!
hahaha you will only answer on PM now! damn, pathetic dude.
careful now, you are pinning him down AND using profanity.
He'll run if you are not careful.
You see it's ok for him to question people's character, just not the other way around. ;)
-
That's not my quote, so that everyone is aware.
And I didn't say the below part either - which is entirely innacurate.
If you had a valid argument, you wouldn't have such a need to imagine things I'd said, would you Rob?
240, do you not know how to use the 'quote' function?
He does and will actually invent a "quote" that is purportedly made by you. He has a history. :) I think he has a problem distinguishing between quoting and paraphrasing.
-
careful now, you are pinning him down AND using profanity.
He'll run if you are not careful.
You see it's ok for him to question people's character, just not the other way around. ;)
He didn't use profanity, and I don't have a problem with the questioning of people's charcters, especially if they make comments like yours.
-
He does and will actually invent a "quote" that is purportedly made by you. He has a history. :) I think he has a problem distinguishing between quoting and paraphrasing.
If he actually had an argument that was logical and accurate, he's have no need to do this at all.
Everyone should ask themselves why 240 would need to create quotes for the purpose of argument, if he has one worth telling.
-
Again? Show where, without making up quotes this time.
Do you agree that you falsified my position above? If so, you understand why I won't entertain you.
UPDATE:
For everyone else, I've clarified again and again what my position is on this, which is more than easily available if you search my topic on 'Iraq/US Arms Deceit'. 240 is indulging himself in silly misquotes and falsities, again.
LOL... so you won't restate your position, huh?
You just wrote seven sentences encouraging people to search all your posts.
You could have reitereated your position in 1 sentence.
you're afraid to take a position dude.
-
BRUCE,
for the record,
Why did the US send those materials to iraqi Universities, when they knew saddam was a murderous dictator at war with both iran and his own people?
simple question, dude.
-
If he actually had an argument that was logical and accurate, he's have no need to do this at all.
Everyone should ask themselves why 240 would need to create quotes for the purpose of argument, if he has one worth telling.
True. And then after inventing facts, he will ask you to defend those invented facts, or ask a dumb set up question, and use the rather juvenile tactic of calling you a chicken if you don't respond. Quit taking the bait dude. :)
-
BRUCE,
for the record,
Why did the US send those materials to iraqi Universities, when they knew saddam was a murderous dictator at war with both iran and his own people?
simple question, dude.
You refuse to answer the simplest of questions from me, and then falsify quotes on my behalf. I won't be responding to you from hereon in this thread until you answer and apologise. I'll clarify my position happily for anyone else if they are interested at all.
-
BRUCE,
for the record,
Why did the US send those materials to iraqi Universities, when they knew saddam was a murderous dictator at war with both iran and his own people?
simple question, dude.
-
True. And then after inventing facts, he will ask you to defend those invented facts, or ask a dumb set up question, and use the rather juvenile tactic of calling you a chicken if you don't respond. Quit taking the bait dude. :)
I've just taken your advice mate.
-
You refuse to answer the simplest of questions from me, and then falsify quotes on my behalf. I won't be responding to you from hereon in this thread until you answer and apologise. I'll clarify my position happily for anyone else if they are interested at all.
Yep. Just as I figured!
Agree with me or disagree with me, I give my opinion and back it up.
Sad that you will attack mine, but won't even give yours.
-
He didn't use profanity, and I don't have a problem with the questioning of people's charcters, especially if they make comments like yours.
ok BRUCE,
all i know is, that you have no problem attacking someone's character direct or indierct, but when you get a taste of your own medicine you don't seem to handle it well.
Sorry, if i skipped the indirect way and went right to the direct method.
Have good day over there what is it Monday afternoon?
Sunday night 10pm for me and i have lots going on tomorrow.
In the spirit of debate i can repost my response whit out the profanity if you'd like. but I'll do it tomorrow. i need to get to sleep.
Got lots of business propaganda/motivation to put out tomorrow via fax!
-
Bruce...why aren't you in the military fighting?
Do YOU have any immediate family who is?
-
all i know is, that you have no problem attacking someone's character direct or indierct, but when you get a taste of your own medicine you don't seem to handle it well.
yeah. bruce attacks everything I say, claims i'm lying, demands I apologize.
i admit when i'm wrong, then when he says i paraphrased his position incorrectly, I asked him to clarify.
He's essentially saying I misunderstood his position, but he's so offended he refuses to state it.
BRUCE,
for the record,
Why did the US send those materials to iraqi Universities, when they knew saddam was a murderous dictator at war with both iran and his own people?
simple question, dude.
-
You refuse to answer the simplest of questions from me, and then falsify quotes on my behalf. I won't be responding to you from hereon in this thread until you answer and apologise. I'll clarify my position happily for anyone else if they are interested at all.
BRUCE,
for the record,
Why did the US send those materials to iraqi Universities, when they knew saddam was a murderous dictator at war with both iran and his own people?
simple question, dude.
-
yeah. bruce attacks everything I say, claims i'm lying, demands I apologize.
i admit when i'm wrong, then when he says i paraphrased his position incorrectly, I asked him to clarify.
He's essentially saying I misunderstood his position, but he's so offended he refuses to state it.
BRUCE,
for the record,
Why did the US send those materials to iraqi Universities, when they knew saddam was a murderous dictator at war with both iran and his own people?
simple question, dude.
well, he'll reveal his character soon.
I'm optimistic that he'll prove to be a stand up guy who's just using many different debate tactics.
-
what happened to the vault idea? This is a good time for that. 240 vs Bruce
-
what happened to the vault idea? This is a good time for that. 240 vs Bruce
kinda hard when the dude won't even assert an initial position on the issue.
i don't even know what position I'd be arguing against lol...
-
kinda hard when the dude won't even assert an initial position on the issue.
i don't even know what position I'd be arguing against lol...
:-\ good point
-
:-\ good point
shit, me and him might be in agreement. I dunno. But he's claling me a liar and telling me to search thru hundreds of posts to find his position again... I don't want to spend 45 minutes doing that. I'd rather he just spend one sentence posting it.
Wrong or right, I respect a man more when he's honest and direct.
When a guy hides from answering, refuses positions, or won't just give a clear response, I don't trust him. That's what politicians do, to avoid criticism or offending. We're just here on a political board to discuss positions and learn, right?
-
ok BRUCE,
all i know is, that you have no problem attacking someone's character direct or indierct, but when you get a taste of your own medicine you don't seem to handle it well.
Sorry, if i skipped the indirect way and went right to the direct method.
Have good day over there what is it Monday afternoon?
Sunday night 10pm for me and i have lots going on tomorrow.
In the spirit of debate i can repost my response whit out the profanity if you'd like. but I'll do it tomorrow. i need to get to sleep.
Got lots of business propaganda/motivation to put out tomorrow via fax!
Thank you, Ozmo. GT has PM'd regarding this matter and I've replied at length. I thoroughly enjoy stating my positions, which I'm crystal clear on and very keen to share with you all.
If I've seemed evasive this evening, it's because 240 has deliberately falsified quotes and avoided my original questions. I won't involve myself in debate with him if he cannot play by the rules and respect other's rights to not be misled. He has tried to deceive you all as to my position, but has simply come out looking desperate. I'll say it again; a legitimate argument needs no mistruths or exaggerations.
I have also clearly made my position to Rob, as we've been debating this topic for some time. He is yet to admit he was wrong on his Anthrax and Mustard Gas claims, however.
GT, please feel free to post the PM I sent you as a response to anyone here. Otherwise, anyone may PM me for more information. 240, I'll answer all of your questions once you admit you falsified quotes and once you answer my initial questions.
-
Thank you, Ozmo. GT has PM'd regarding this matter and I've replied at length. I thoroughly enjoy stating my positions, which I'm crystal clear on and very keen to share with you all.
If I've seemed evasive this evening, it's because 240 has deliberately falsified quotes and avoided my original questions. I won't involve myself in debate with him if he cannot play by the rules and respect other's rights to not be misled. He has tried to deceive you all as to my position, but has simply come out looking desperate. I'll say it again; a legitimate argument needs no mistruths or exaggerations.
I have also clearly made my position to Rob, as we've been debating this topic for some time. He is yet to admit he was wrong on his Anthrax and Mustard Gas claims, however.
GT, please feel free to post the PM I sent you as a response to anyone here. Otherwise, anyone may PM me for more information. 240, I'll answer all of your questions once you admit you falsified quotes and once you answer my initial questions.
So why don't you publicly state your position once and for all, to clear the air?
You just wrote 4 paragraphs telling us why you can't write one sentence.
-
GT, please feel free to post the PM I sent you as a response to anyone here. Otherwise, anyone may PM me for more information. 240, I'll answer all of your questions once you admit you falsified quotes and once you answer my initial questions.
Here it is.
I'm not sure yet what it is that 240 has asked me about Mustard Gas on the board yet, as I haven't looked, but he has accused The US of arming Saddam Hussein with this noxious chemical on more than one occasion. He claims, inaccurately, that the US supported Hussein's war against Iran, and because of this provided Saddam with the weaponry to achieve this end.
Unfortunately for Rob, the UN, the US Senate and The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute all found that this was not the case. Here's an article by Australian journalist Andrew Bolt on the matter:
As a US Senate inquiry found, America's Centers for Disease Control and the non-profit American Type Culture Collection did send Iraq biological materials in the 1980s, thinking they would be used there as they were in other countries - to develop treatments for animal and human diseases.
These were sent not to "military laboratories", but mostly to universities and health officials, who secretly passed on some to scientists working on Iraq's WMD. You know, on the weapons this same film also claims "never" existed.
United Nations weapons inspectors have said the US officials responsible were simply "naive", and no evidence suggests any worse.
As for Bechtel, it won a bid to build two legitimate petro-chemical plants in Iraq that could have made by-products used in mustard or nerve gas. But Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait cut short Bechtel's work.
Nor did the US "arm" Saddam. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found more than 80 per cent of the weapons Iraq imported from 1973 to 2002 came from the three nations which tried hardest to save Saddam -- Russia, France and China. Germany was also the biggest supplier to Iraq's chemical weapons program, say UN records.
US "arms sales" to Iraq amounted to just four helicopters two decades ago -- all sold to private buyers, but seized by Iraq's military
240 has basically now been argued down to this. He hasn't admitted that he was wrong in the face of this evidence, but has avoided making claims along the lines of we gave Saddam Anthrax or Mustard Gas.
In fact, 240 until recently was of the belief Anthrax is a chemical weapon, which it is not. As you are probably aware, it is a deadly bacterium.
GT, I have more resources for you to have a look at if you are interested in learning more on this topic. As I spell out above, The US was guilty of nothing more than naivety in its attempts to save Iraqi lives from Saddam's tyrannical regime. Thank you again for contacting me regarding this.
-
Funny how threads mutate.
;)
-
Andrew Bolt... You know you're quoting a reliable source when Supreme Court Judges call his commentary "disingenuous" and "misleading." Lol.
... I wonder if it's something in the water over there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt
;D
-
Andrew Bolt... You know you're quoting a reliable source when Supreme Court Judges call his commentary "disingenuous" and "misleading." Lol.
... I wonder if it's something in the water over there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt
;D
yikes lol
that proves once again that you can find just about anything to support your views on the web.
-
I'd like to take a moment to point out another of our esteemed Getbig Political Board members' sources.
I give you "devil".
-
Andrew Bolt... You know you're quoting a reliable source when Supreme Court Judges call his commentary "disingenuous" and "misleading." Lol.
... I wonder if it's something in the water over there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt
;D
I'm sorry, is there anything inaccurate about what Andrew's said, or are you on another typical Leftist smear campaign?
Let's just brush everything he's said aside because of Wikipedia's take on matters, okay? That should help you sleep better at night.
-
Funny how threads mutate.
;)
Indeed it is, Ozmo. To get a little bit back on topic, is there anyone here that still disputes Saddam had involvement with terror attacks resulting in the death of American citizens?
-
Indeed it is, Ozmo. To get a little bit back on topic, is there anyone here that still disputes Saddam had involvement with terror attacks resulting in the death of American citizens?
I don't think that was ever an issue. It's like asking if Mobsters ever killed Italian Americans.
The issue was whether his level of involvement was enough to warrant what it has cost us and was it worth the mess of increased terrorism we have created in Iraq as a result of our bumbling approach.
-
The issue was whether his level of involvement was enough to warrant what it has cost us and was it worth the mess of increased terrorism we have created in Iraq as a result of our bumbling approach.
But I still believe many people have noted that Saddam had no ties to 9/11 per se, however they also believe this means Saddam was not involved with killing Americans elsewhere.
I've had several people here tell me that Saddam was of no threat to American lives, including yourself.
The extent of Saddam's pro-terror dispostion was staggering both domestically and, as I've shown, abroad. Given the opportunity, he would have done far worse. We are far better off for his removal and execution.
-
But I still believe many people have noted that Saddam had no ties to 9/11 per se, however they also believe this means Saddam was not involved with killing Americans elsewhere.
I've had several people here tell me that Saddam was of no threat to American lives, including yourself.
Did he have ties to what happen on 9/11? I don't think so. If he did, what was the level of his ties? were they based on family like the Saudis? Or did he train and finance the hijackers like Al Queda? See what i'm getting at here?
Next issue: (Understanding first that i believe Saddam was a dangerous person and am not defending him in any way.) We have to determine if how much Saddam was a threat to American lives. Simply saying he was threat is far too general. For example: My friend traveled what was bosnia in the late 1990's and early 2000's on business. He wouldn't tell people he was American for fear of reprisals from the bombing by us there. Now should we consider those people a threat to American lives? Does that justify us invading them? I don;t think so. There are many leaders in the world you can consider dangerous. Saddam was no different, but by that principle are we justified invading those countries with out serious provocation? no. If I had gone to Iraq and pissed on Saddam's statue then I would have been in danger. otherwise Saddam wasn't going to do anything. Too much to lose for him.
The extent of Saddam's pro-terror dispostion was staggering both domestically and, as I've shown, abroad. Given the opportunity, he would have done far worse. We are far better off for his removal and execution.
What you've outlined is not staggering at all really. He harbored a terrorist and paid suicide bomber's families 25K. What dirty water does Pakistan have their hands in? How about Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran? Those i'm sure are far more guilty of this sin.
Now are we really far better off? If we get control of Iraq, the terrorist presence is less than pre-war levels, and democracy flourishes permanently then yes we are better off. But after 4 years we haven't seen it. If fact the terrorist threat is far worse there now. that's a fact and it's more dangerous to American lives there. That's another fact. And if Saddam was around he'd squash any threat like a civil war immediately and ruthlessly. something we are not ready or able to do. So in reality, we are worse off.
-
First off, I don't think from the evidence I've seen, that Saddam had involvement in the 9/11 events. He did, however, play a major role in other terror attacks - as I've shown.
Again, you're trying to excuse Saddam from reprisal because others may be worse. I believe in freeing Iraq and removing Saddam, America has set the catalyst for change in this region, and warned other terror-inclined nations and groups that the American military's metaphoric arm is far-reaching, powerful and swift. Syria, for example, has taken note of America's involvement in Iraq and is now, not surprisingly, beginning to tow the line for fear of being next.
-
Bruce, you make a huge assumption.
We agree Saddam was a bad man.
We agree the world is better without him.
We agree to some degree, of course he was a threat to Americans.
But was removing him worth 400 billion and 3000 lives? Depends who you ask.
Just because something is a threat, doesn't we go after it.
Nkorea is a threat - they have fired missiles at hawaii and set off a nuke - but we didn't nuke them. Because it wasn't cost/benefit feasible to do it.
Falling pieces of skylab are a threat to americans. We're not putting up a space net - because it wouldn't be cost feasible.
Palestinians kill americans - we are not invading them because it isn't cost-feasible.
Iraq was a threat - and thanks to their black gold - they WERE a cost-feasible target. So we invaded them.
THis hypocritical bullshit makes you look like an idealistic middle schooler, or a man unable to face the fact that his pro-war stance is also pro-"imperialism for oil with high human casualties". Just sack up. You support the war in iraq, you're thirsty for war in Iran, and you consider these lives to be acceptable losses for our goals. And our goals aren't WMD or we'd be in NKorea. And our goals aren't human rights - or we'd be in Darfur. The wars are for oil, and we're in 2 oil nations and entering a third now. So just be a man and admit that to your conflicted self.
-
Bruce, you make a huge assumption.
We agree Saddam was a bad man.
We agree the world is better without him.
We agree to some degree, of course he was a threat to Americans.
But was removing him worth 400 billion and 3000 lives? Depends who you ask.
Just because something is a threat, doesn't we go after it.
Nkorea is a threat - they have fired missiles at hawaii and set off a nuke - but we didn't nuke them. Because it wasn't cost/benefit feasible to do it.
Falling pieces of skylab are a threat to americans. We're not putting up a space net - because it wouldn't be cost feasible.
Palestinians kill americans - we are not invading them because it isn't cost-feasible.
Iraq was a threat - and thanks to their black gold - they WERE a cost-feasible target. So we invaded them.
THis hypocritical bullshit makes you look like an idealistic middle schooler, or a man unable to face the fact that his pro-war stance is also pro-"imperialism for oil with high human casualties". Just sack up. You support the war in iraq, you're thirsty for war in Iran, and you consider these lives to be acceptable losses for our goals. And our goals aren't WMD or we'd be in NKorea. And our goals aren't human rights - or we'd be in Darfur. The wars are for oil, and we're in 2 oil nations and entering a third now. So just be a man and admit that to your conflicted self.
Despite what you may believe, genital size is not correlated to one's geopolitical stance. Am I to take it your position here is that I won't agree with you on this issue because I refuse to 'be a man'?
Last time I checked, we were both sitting safely behind computer screens in democratic, war-free nations. I’ve even seen women with views on this very conflict; shall I inspect their ovaries to make sure they are of sufficient plumpness for evaluation of their legitimacy in this debate?
Why don't you try and encourage reasonable, genital-free debate, rather than this silliness you've given me above? Perhaps then you'll find me more accommodating of you.
-
First off, I don't think from the evidence I've seen, that Saddam had involvement in the 9/11 events. He did, however, play a major role in other terror attacks - as I've shown.
Again, you're trying to excuse Saddam from reprisal because others may be worse. I believe in freeing Iraq and removing Saddam, America has set the catalyst for change in this region, and warned other terror-inclined nations and groups that the American military's metaphoric arm is far-reaching, powerful and swift. Syria, for example, has taken note of America's involvement in Iraq and is now, not surprisingly, beginning to tow the line for fear of being next.
I'm not excusing Saddam at all. I'm only saying it would have been better to be more prudent with our moves. Attacking wasn't prudent unless you factor in the oil which would mean all the other justifications for attacking are bunk.
As far setting the catalyst for change in the region? if you count "more" hatred towards the USA as change then we have done just that.
Those people down there are 3rd world barbaric infighting bastards and they will be that way with or with out us.
And if you factor in lebanon and buy into the propaganda that Hez is a terrorist group, (which no doubt will start a poop storm here), then we should have invaded lebanon first and foremost right?
but we didn't.
We didn't attack Iraq for the reasons stated by BUSH or anyone who thinks we did it "to get rid of a guy who supports terrorists" It's an invalid argument at this point in time.
-
I'm not excusing Saddam at all. I'm only saying it would have been better to be more prudent with our moves. Attacking wasn't prudent unless you factor in the oil which would mean all the other justifications for attacking are bunk.
As far setting the catalyst for change in the region? if you count "more" hatred towards the USA as change then we have done just that.
Those people down there are 3rd world barbaric infighting bastards and they will be that way with or with out us.
And if you factor in lebanon and buy into the propaganda that Hez is a terrorist group, (which no doubt will start a poop storm here), then we should have invaded lebanon first and foremost right?
but we didn't.
We didn't attack Iraq for the reasons stated by BUSH or anyone who thinks we did it "to get rid of a guy who supports terrorists" It's an invalid argument at this point in time.
Actually, I don't see our Iraqi friends as being '3rd world barbaric infighting bastards' at all. Undoubtedly, those that would seek to annihilate the lives of innocents' fit into this category more fittingly. Your prejudices against freedom loving Iraqis, of which there are millions - as supported by their elections - is something I condemn. I'm all for giving these Iraqis a go, whether you, I, your sister, my dad or anyone believes this isn't a legitimate reason to go to war. Fact is, we're there, we're fighting. Let's make the best of a situation we'd all rather not have to be involved with.
You also mention Lebanon and Hezbollah. Saddam was giving rewards to terrorists in Lebanon as reward for killing innocent Westerners, including Americans:
Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” 13 Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization — a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Among other savage acts, Nidal’s group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Vienna’s airport, killing 19 people.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/ (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)
Where does the group now operate?
It is now thought to be based in Iraq, with cells in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. In 1999, Egypt and Libya closed down ANO offices in their countries.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9153/#6 (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9153/#6)
So, Lebanon has also been put on notice by the Americans. Despite not actually having militarily being involved there, the US has sent a warning that support for those that take American lives is akin to have pushed the 'detonate' button.
-
Actually, I don't see our Iraqi friends as being '3rd world barbaric infighting bastards' at all. Undoubtedly, those that would seek to annihilate the lives of innocents' fit into this category more fittingly. Your prejudices against freedom loving Iraqis, of which there are millions - as supported by their elections - is something I condemn. I'm all for giving these Iraqis a go, whether you, I, your sister, my dad or anyone believes this isn't a legitimate reason to go to war. Fact is, we're there, we're fighting. Let's make the best of a situation we'd all rather not have to be involved with.
Of course there are Iraiqs who want democracy. dah.
I also believe we should now, that we have blundered our way into this mess do what's needed to make it better. I 've maintained that for quite some time.
but this: Your prejudices against freedom loving Iraqis, of which there are millions - as supported by their elections - is something I condemn.
If there weren't a bunch of infighting 3rd world bastards down there, we wouldn't be reading about bombs blowing up in markets would we?
Stop trying to words in my mouth by accusing me of being prejudice. It's a typical thing you do that indirectly attacks someone's character that you're fond of doing and when you get called on it, you don't handle it well which we established last night.
If you can't debate with out indirectly attacking someone and can't deal with it if they give you the same treatment, then don't start with it in the first place.
If i said "all" Iraqis you might have something to go on. but i didn't and you know what i meant.
You also mention Lebanon and Hezbollah. Saddam was giving rewards to terrorists in Lebanon as reward for killing innocent Westerners, including Americans:
So, Lebanon has also been put on notice by the Americans. Despite not actually having militarily being involved there, the US has sent a warning that support for those that take American lives is akin to have pushed the 'detonate' button.
For the reasons you cite lebanon should have been the first to go. They are housing an army of terrorist for goodness sakes! but what do we do? we go after some guy who is paying the families 25k for suicide bombers. we don't go after the country who has an army of supposed terrorist, That's why that argument doesn't hold.
We used WMD's ans the excuse with oil and a stronger military presence in the area as the real reason.
-
Of course there are Iraiqs who want democracy. dah.
I also believe we should now, that we have blundered our way into this mess do what's needed to make it better. I 've maintained that for quite some time.
but this:
If there weren't a bunch of infighting 3rd world bastards down there, we wouldn't be reading about bombs blowing up in markets would we?
Stop trying to words in my mouth by accusing me of being prejudice. It's a typical thing that indirectly attacks someone's character that you're fond of doing and when you get called on it, you don't handle it well which we established last night.
If you can't debate with out indirectly attacking someone and can't deal with it if they give you the same treatment, then don't start with it in the first place.
If i said "all" Iraqis you might have something to go on. but i didn't and you know what i meant.
For the reasons you cite lebanon should have been the first to go. They are housing an army of terrorist for goodness sakes! but what do we do? we go after some guy who is paying the families 25k for suicide bombers. we don't go after the country who has an army of supposed terrorist, That's that argument doesn't hold.
We used WMD's ans the excuse with oil and a stronger military presence in the area as the real reason.
Calm down, I quoted what you said word-perfect. I didn't need to put words in your mouth because you were silly enough to say something so prejudiced all by yourself. No amount of bold or underline is going to remove this fact.
My point on Lebanon is that you claim we should invade based on our actions in Iraq. Well, the truth is we're not doing nothing about it. By removing Saddam Hussein you remove funding for terrorists in Lebanon and thus stop Americans being killed in Israel. You also sound the alarm for militant Islamists that America will stand up to terror, no matter the proximity.
-
Calm down, I quoted what you said word-perfect. I didn't need to put words in your mouth because you were silly enough to say something so prejudiced all by yourself. No amount of bold or underline is going to remove this fact.
Well if that's case that's not what i meant.....but you already knew that.
The bold underline wasn't designed to remove that "mis-statement"
I was just telling you about yourself. something you don't like.
My point on Lebanon is that you claim we should invade based on our actions in Iraq. Well, the truth is we're not doing nothing about it. By removing Saddam Hussein you remove funding for terrorists in Lebanon and thus stop Americans being killed in Israel. You also sound the alarm for militant Islamists that America will stand up to terror, no matter the proximity.
Are you saying all funding BRUCE? and therefore am i too assume that based on your word-perfect interpretation that you believe saddam fully funded hez?
Saddam was not the major source of funding by far. I claim we should have invaded Lebanon for the reasons YOU gave me, those aren't my reasons. Israel doing just find on their own repressing everything non-jew in the area. But you say Saddam was supporting terror and we were right to invade, but yet there's a government who's supporting an entire army and we did nothing.
-
Well if that's case that's not what i meant.....but you already knew that.
The bold underline wasn't designed to remove that "mis-statement"
I was just telling you about yourself. something you don't like.
I love hearing about me, no matter how inaccurate your quips may be. I'm sure I'll be able to set you right, anyway.
Are you saying all funding BRUCE? and therefore am i too assume that based on your word-perfect interpretation that you believe saddam fully funded hez?
Saddam was not the major source of funding by far. I claim we should have invaded Lebanon for the reasons YOU gave me, those aren't my reasons. Israel doing just find on their own repressing everything non-jew in the area. But you say Saddam was supporting terror and we were right to invade, but yet there's a government who's supporting an entire army and we did nothing.
Don't be foolish. I didn't even imply Saddam was the sole funding source for Hezbollah, let alone say something as plainly backwards as what you did. When you make statements like this, you enter the arena of childishness, I'd advise you not to if you want to be taken seriously.
Just an observation, but i now agree with some of the people here that call you naive. It's showing now.
Calling me 'naive' is being used as an easy out from logical, fact-based debate by some here. Am I to take it this is what you're attempting now, or can you actually show me where I've erred? If not, I'll continue to believe I'm not quite as 'naive' as some would have me think.
-
Actually, I'm not quite finished embarrassing you. Here's the 9/11 Commission's views on it:
Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country….
hmmm..so ya consider the bin laden family "just another saudi" family..
i dunno about you but i would grounded the bin laden family and AT LEAST questioned em...
people have gone to huntanimo for less ;)
they were allowed to leave NO QUESTIONS ASKED :-\
please tell me why?
-
Bruce, you make a huge assumption.
We agree Saddam was a bad man.
We agree the world is better without him.
We agree to some degree, of course he was a threat to Americans.
But was removing him worth 400 billion and 3000 lives? Depends who you ask.
Just because something is a threat, doesn't we go after it.
Nkorea is a threat - they have fired missiles at hawaii and set off a nuke - but we didn't nuke them. Because it wasn't cost/benefit feasible to do it.
Falling pieces of skylab are a threat to americans. We're not putting up a space net - because it wouldn't be cost feasible.
Palestinians kill americans - we are not invading them because it isn't cost-feasible.
Iraq was a threat - and thanks to their black gold - they WERE a cost-feasible target. So we invaded them.
-
I love hearing about me, no matter how inaccurate your quips may be. I'm sure I'll be able to set you right, anyway.
your words speak louder than your words ;D
Don't be foolish. I didn't even imply Saddam was the sole funding source for Hezbollah, let alone say something as plainly backwards as what you did. When you make statements like this, you enter the arena of childishness, I'd advise you not to if you want to be taken seriously.
Sure you did. you said "By removing Saddam Hussein you remove funding for terrorists" Just like said "those people" which could have meant any group.
Another failed attempt of putting words in people's mouth.
Calling me 'naive' is being used as an easy out from logical, fact-based debate by some here. Am I to take it this is what you're attempting now, or can you actually show me where I've erred? If not, I'll continue to believe I'm not quite as 'naive' as some would have me think.
I've showed you were you've erred. Unfortunately, you are so glazed over with your naivety that you can't see it. the funny part is, you actually think you 're smart and well informed. You put up links and attack people's character when they don't agree. Very childish in my book. Like how you start a thread by saying: "you're a fool"
You're a fool, of course, and you come across as a bigoted ignoramus in your post. I certainly hope you're more agreeable in real life, otherwise I feel for those that have to put up with you.
That's the first sign of a weak argument and an even weaker debater. Are you so weak at making a good argument you almost automatically have to attack a person's character right off the bat?
How Pathetic.
BTW: the key was the WMD's you should have went that route. You would have been able to construct a better arguement. Geez KH figured it out real fast. why not you oh smart one?
-
your words speak louder than your words ;D
Sure you did. you said "By removing Saddam Hussein you remove funding for terrorists" Just like said "those people" which could have meant any group.
Another failed attempt of putting words in people's mouth.
I've showed you were you've erred. Unfortunately, you are so glazed over with your naivety that you can't see it. the funny part is, you actually think you 're smart and well informed. You put up links and attack people's character when they don't agree. Very childish in my book. Like how you start a thread by saying: "you're a fool"
That's the first sign of a weak argument and an even weaker debater. Are you so weak at making a good argument you almost automatically have to attack a person's character right off the bat?
How Pathetic.
BTW: the key was the WMD's you should have went that route. You would have been able to construct a better arguement. Geez KH figured it out real fast. why not you oh smart one?
I take it you don't have any factual argument to present. What sources have you used to discredit me? On the contrary, you're doing an excellent job of discrediting yourself by throwing insults and inaccuracies, but I'm yet to see any research or usage of sources outside of your own grey-matter. Give me something to debate with you on a pragmatic political basis or try to engage others in your childishness.
-
I take it you don't have any factual argument to present. What sources have you used to discredit me? On the contrary, you're doing an excellent job of discrediting yourself by throwing insults and inaccuracies, but I'm yet to see any research or usage of sources outside of your own grey-matter. Give me something to debate with you on a pragmatic political basis or try to engage others in your childishness.
blah blah blah,
toned it down this time huh?
BTW: most if what i used was facts you provided. It's just that those facts you provided don't mean much in relation to your argument.
but keep telling yourself what you just wrote (another nice deflection) , you'll feel better when you sleep.
-
blah blah blah,
toned it down this time huh?
BTW: most if what i used was facts you provided. It's just that those facts you provided don't mean much in relation to your argument.
but keep telling yourself what you just wrote (another nice deflection) , you'll feel better when you sleep.
Case in point. I won't entertain your silliness anymore in this thread, okay?
-
Case in point. I won't entertain your silliness anymore in this thread, okay?
here we go again, gets a taste of his own medicine and can't handle it.
-
here we go again, gets a taste of his own medicine and can't handle it.
yep.
i'm seriously bored with him. He'll write a thousand words and won't say a thing. Most naive poster here.
-
yep.
i'm seriously bored with him. He'll write a thousand words and won't say a thing. Most naive poster here.
The 'naive' count rises, do we have a new 'understand' on our hands? Poor 240, so misunderstood.
-
Guys, there's no point in arguing with Bruce.. The man just ignores whatever evidence you throw at him by nitpicking material and distorting it to his liking.
Bottom line is that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not enough of a threat to warrant a war.
-
Guys, there's no point in arguing with Bruce.. The man just ignores whatever evidence you throw at him by nitpicking material and distorting it to his liking.
Bottom line is that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not enough of a threat to warrant a war.
Really? Has anyone given evidence of anything contrary to what I've said here? Or is it all mere opinion, like your post?
I haven't been arguing that Saddam was involved in 9/11, I've said he has strong ties to terror, some of which responsible for the deaths of Americans. Do you debate any of my facts, or would you rather attempt to smear?
-
Really? Has anyone given evidence of anything contrary to what I've said here? Or is it all mere opinion, like your post?
Bruce, there's no real point in presenting factual evidence if you just nitpick and ignore the facts. Maybe opinionated posts will make you see the light...
-
Bruce, there's no real point in presenting factual evidence if you just nitpick and ignore the facts. Maybe opinionated posts will make you see the light...
I'll take it you have none then (facts), and an abundance of ill-formed opinion is the replacement.
-
Really? Has anyone given evidence of anything contrary to what I've said here? Or is it all mere opinion, like your post?
I haven't been arguing that Saddam was involved in 9/11, I've said he has strong ties to terror, some of which responsible for the deaths of Americans. Do you debate any of my facts, or would you rather attempt to smear?
Bruce,
I think the point people are making, and they can correct me if I'm wrong, is that YES... Saddam had terror ties... Guess what? So does the US... We gave Iraq WMDs, we gave the Taliban weapons and training...
If you are going to say it's OK to oust Saddam because he had terror ties... We should be able to oust almost every single President since at least 1980, and probably back as far as the 1950s.
So while you may be correct, your reasoning behind his removal of power seems a bit erroneous.
-
Bruce,
I think the point people are making, and they can correct me if I'm wrong, is that YES... Saddam had terror ties... Guess what? So does the US... We gave Iraq WMDs, we gave the Taliban weapons and training...
Whoops, wrong. The UN, US Senate and many others have proven this isn't the case. Why use lies if you have a good argument to make?
-
Whoops, wrong. The UN, US Senate and many others have proven this isn't the case. Why use lies if you have a good argument to make?
So we didn't arm the Taliban? That's a lie and you know it... also, that spin about giving the WMDs to their university doesn't fly either... You can buy that snake oil if you want to, but I think deep down, you know it's bunk.
-
So we didn't arm the Taliban? That's a lie and you know it... also, that spin about giving the WMDs to their university doesn't fly either... You can buy that snake oil if you want to, but I think deep down, you know it's bunk.
Would you like to see me in The Cage on either of these issues, or are you fine for me to embarrass you right here?
-
Would you like to see me in The Cage on either of these issues, or are you fine for me to embarrass you right here?
I don't think you've embarrassed anyone but yourself Bruce... I don't care what any "Senate subcommittee" says about some shit that is pretty common knowledge around the world Bruce. I know that they are politicians and they lie... that's what they do.
You can hang on to that last nut hair of the "Great and Never Faltering" government stance if you want too, but then you probably think that Bush's wiretaps weren't illegal then.
-
I don't think you've embarrassed anyone but yourself Bruce... I don't care what any "Senate subcommittee" says about some shit that is pretty common knowledge around the world Bruce. I know that they are politicians and they lie... that's what they do.
You can hang on to that last nut hair of the "Great and Never Faltering" government stance if you want too, but then you probably think that Bush's wiretaps weren't illegal then.
Oh, okay - is that your response to The UN's findings as well? That great US-loving bureaucracy that you see on TV? Do you have any defence to the facts I provide or do you base your geopolitical opinions on 'pretty common knowledge' as you call it?
-
Oh, okay - is that your response to The UN's findings as well? That great US-loving bureaucracy that you see on TV? Do you have any defence to the facts I provide or do you base your geopolitical opinions on 'pretty common knowledge' as you call it?
Well, since I've got 30 seconds to google because of server limits... let's see what I can find.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990
That's self explanatory
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920810g.htm
Exhibit A is the BNL scandal. Poor bank supervision allowed BNL's small Atlanta branch to loan over $4 billion to Iraq between 1986 and 1990 without reporting the loans to bank regulators or the bank's headquarters in Rome. What is worse, over $2 billion of the BNL loans went to Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization otherwise known as MIMI. MIMI used this illicit supply of cash to fund its secret military technology procurement network and to purchase technology for Iraqi weapons projects including the Condor II ballistic missile, Gerald Bull's super gun and Iraq's clandestine nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Through the non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. government under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989.
That's like 5 minutes of work... Come on man.
-
Well, since I've got 30 seconds to google because of server limits... let's see what I can find.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990
That's self explanatory
http:/www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920810g.htm
Exhibit A is the BNL scandal. Poor bank supervision allowed BNL's small Atlanta branch to loan over $4 billion to Iraq between 1986 and 1990 without reporting the loans to bank regulators or the bank's headquarters in Rome. What is worse, over $2 billion of the BNL loans went to Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization otherwise known as MIMI. MIMI used this illicit supply of cash to fund its secret military technology procurement network and to purchase technology for Iraqi weapons projects including the Condor II ballistic missile, Gerald Bull's super gun and Iraq's clandestine nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Through the non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. government under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989.
That's like 5 minutes of work... Come on man.
All of which was addressed by the UN and the US Senate in their enquiry into the affair, and the US was found to not have been guilty. Again, would you like to take this to The Cage so that we may bring the facts into light, rather than using ahem, Wikipedia as your source for such a complex issue?
-
Whoops, wrong. The UN, US Senate and many others have proven this isn't the case. Why use lies if you have a good argument to make?
When you make a statement such as this it would really help your case to provide a source.
You've said the US Senate and others (who again?) have "proven" this isn't the case.
Your statement is not an opinion but (assuming you're correct) a provable fact.
You would only be helping yourself if you provide sources to back up statements which you present as facts
-
All of which was addressed by the UN and the US Senate in their enquiry into the affair, and the US was found to not have been guilty. Again, would you like to take this to The Cage so that we may bring the facts into light, rather than using ahem, Wikipedia as your source for such a complex issue?
Wikipedia is an EXCELLENT source... It is updated by EVERYONE and therefore is much more accurate than something like... Oh, your blog, which even if found to be incorrect, no one will correct it, because it's only you.
Obviously, you don't understand the open source movement, nor how much more powerful it really is... Wikipedia has been shown to be more correct than Encyclopedia Britannica because it's always up to date.
As I said, feel free to post your source for your information right here... You started this thread, why not do it right here? Why the cage? Who cares about a cage anyway?
Just post your source... I have posted mine, and while you may not like it... That's more than you have done currently.
-
To both of you, I've provided the US Senate Inquiry in a new thread I started for the benefit of a stalker here. Search for the thread if you want it, I've posted everything else more than once here for your perusal.
-
To both of you, I've provided the US Senate Inquiry in a new thread I started for the benefit of a stalker here. Search for the thread if you want it, I've posted everything else more than once here for your perusal.
again, just trying to help.
For continuity, it would benefit you to include the source WHEN you make the statement
-
again, just trying to help.
For continuity, it would benefit you to include the source WHEN you make the statement
Keep track of what I post on this board and you'd have no such issue. I'll more than happily respond in due course to any PM that requests sources of information, so that everyone is aware.
-
again, just trying to help.
For continuity, it would benefit you to include the source WHEN you make the statement
I do not understand I have to get a source and he seems to be ok with saying "I posted it elsewhere", that really is like going to a debate and having a question asked and saying "I answered that last week, so I shouldn't have to answer it again."
If that is continually Bruce's MO, then I will just not respond to what he writes...
-
Keep track of what I post on this board and you'd have no such issue. I'll more than happily respond in due course to any PM that requests sources of information, so that everyone is aware.
seriously - I'm attempting to help you present a more coherent argument
Try to use as few words as possible and when you present something as fact show the source WHEN you make the statement
-
seriously - I'm attempting to help you present a more coherent argument
Try to use as few words as possible and when you present something as fact show the source WHEN you make the statement
Thanks for the heads-up, okay?
-
Thanks for the heads-up, okay?
you're welcome
-
. You can buy that snake oil if you want to, but I think deep down, you know it's bunk.
I only use valvoline synthetic.
-
I only use valvoline synthetic.
Finally - you know what I mean.
-
I only use valvoline synthetic.
Synthetic is good... It's made in a lab, and not drilled from the ground.
-
Synthetic is good... It's made in a lab, and not drilled from the ground.
Oh I don't give a shit about that...as long as the environment lasts til I die,I don't care what they do.
Synthetic just works better. :)
-
Oh I don't give a shit about that...as long as the environment lasts til I die,I don't care what they do.
Synthetic just works better. :)
I'm not talking about it from an environmental stand point, I just don't like the idea of sending money across the world to a group of people who hate me...
I do worry about the planet though... I've got kids and I want it to be better when I leave it (than it is now) for them.
-
I'm not talking about it from an environmental stand point, I just don't like the idea of sending money across the world to a group of people who hate me...
I do worry about the planet though... I've got kids and I want it to be better when I leave it (than it is now) for them.
I was just kid'n. :)
-
I can't tell you how happy I am that this thread has (d)evolved into debate over synthetic oils.