NationStates Jolt Archive

What a dumbass. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FD296B34-C16C-4F3D-BE37-FE7C4DE37825.htm)

I think ":rolleyes:" sums things up.

Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.

And here I was worried that he wouldn't be as entertaining as Rummy.

no.no.no.no.
You've got it wrong and Gates is right.
Go read your manual again.
Remember: "If you're not with us, you're against us."

So, quite rightly, Gates is correct in stating that the Dems NOT obsequiously toadying up to the President and tossing his lettuce IS playing right into the hands of the terrorists.

My God, they're as bad as al Qaeda themselves! The sooner GWB declares martial law and has these traitors rounded up and shot, the better for us all.

Not that matters what the Dems think:
US President George W Bush has made it clear he will ignore any attempt by the US Congress to question his sending 20,000 extra troops to Iraq.

Mr Bush - who faces tough opposition in Washington to his new Iraq strategy - said he was the decision-maker and would not rethink his plans.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6303277.stm
what's the psychological condition called whereby you're obsessed to do the same thing over and over again even when it fails?

*snip*

Yep, I hate freedom, all right. :D

If those in the military who are in charge of winning the war over there need more troops, that'd be a good point to make. Threatening Congress probably isn't the best route. But then, that's politics.

Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.

Yep.

Apparently our dork-in-cheif isn't aware that this is supposed to be a representative democracy. We did elect all those guys he's ignoring, didn't we?

What a dumbass. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FD296B34-C16C-4F3D-BE37-FE7C4DE37825.htm)

I think ":rolleyes:" sums things up.

Meh I was strolling through the anti-bush administration threads of NSG general (who compose 60% of the threads) so i'd like too point out he finds the act that some democrats propose, too block troops, emboldens enemy. You have misquoted, therefore you sir, are the dumbass. The act is emboldening, not the democrats. Its just so lovely how you got such a titled article from Al-Jazeera. :rolleyes:

Apparently our dork-in-cheif isn't aware that this is supposed to be a representative democracy. We did elect all those guys he's ignoring, didn't we?

Who ever said the president had to respect the opinions of Congress? If that were the case, we probably wouldn't give him veto power (or war powers) at all. He's accountable in a few ways, but he's not there to follow popular opinion, regardless who elects him.

hehe... embolden...

hehe... embolden...

Gotta love Middle English, or whichever it is exactly. The press loves it.

The King is dead. Long live the King?

Meh I was strolling through the anti-bush administration threads of NSG general (who compose 60% of the threads)
Which, if anything, tells you about what people think of Bush and his latest 'plan' for mopping up the mess he created.

so i'd like too point out he finds the act that some democrats propose, too block troops, emboldens enemy.
No it doesn't. It's not an Act of Congress (since to be an act it has to have been passed by both houses) nor even a Bill (a proposed Act). It's just a resolution saying 'we don't like this, Mr. Bush.' Apart from that, it doesn't do anything else.

You have misquoted,
No he hasn't. The phrase "Democrats 'Embolden Enemy'" is a direct quotation from the article.

therefore you sir, are the dumbass.
Cute.

The act is emboldening, not the democrats.
*Sigh* If the democrats are sponsoring and passing this resolution which, in the eyes of bullshitters, 'emboldens the enemy' what are the Democrats doing?

Its just so lovely how you got such a titled article from Al-Jazeera. :rolleyes:
...and?

...and?

And he only believes Western news agencies. Like Fox.

Gotta love Middle English, or whichever it is exactly. The press loves it.

You don't use "embolden"? It's basic English.

the enemy was saddam. saddam is dead. So there is no reason for the Iraq war, and pulling out will not help the enemy, as he is dead. wait, no. there just in iraq for the oil.

Sad... All of it.

I wonder what kind of shit has to be done to declare a president a lame duck because Bush is swimming around the pond on crutches.

What's new, the same old fascist discourse.

the enemy was saddam. saddam is dead. So there is no reason for the Iraq war, and pulling out will not help the enemy, as he is dead. wait, no. there just in iraq for the oil.

Cute. You can thank the French and the English for that particular fiasco, when they decided to carve up the Ottoman Empire between them for....

...can we get a drumroll?


...THE OIL after the first World War.


Got to love the hypocrisy of Europe there, don't you? Oh, and who created Israel? Who "gave" them the land smack dab in the middle of the Middle East?

I'll wait while you brush up on your basic history.

...too block troops, emboldens enemy...
Not according to Al-Qaeda.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6289195.stm

Got to love the hypocrisy of Europe there, don't you?
Do we call that a threadjack? Or just flamebait?

Do we call that a threadjack? Or just flamebait?

I'd call it a red herring and a loose attempt at an ad hominem tu quoque.

Do we call that a threadjack? Or just flamebait?
We call it "responding to a prior post":eek:

Cute. You can thank the French and the English for that particular fiasco, when they decided to carve up the Ottoman Empire between them for....

...can we get a drumroll?


...THE OIL after the first World War.


Got to love the hypocrisy of Europe there, don't you? Oh, and who created Israel? Who "gave" them the land smack dab in the middle of the Middle East?

I'll wait while you brush up on your basic history.

Right...and of course the US never meddled in the mid east either....:rolleyes:

Oh, and who created Israel? Who "gave" them the land smack dab in the middle of the Middle East?

I'll wait while you brush up on your basic history.

The United Nations, with the support of the US President I believe.
Perhaps you should brush up on your basic history?

Cute. You can thank the French and the English for that particular fiasco, when they decided to carve up the Ottoman Empire between them for....

...can we get a drumroll?


...THE OIL after the first World War.


Got to love the hypocrisy of Europe there, don't you? Oh, and who created Israel? Who "gave" them the land smack dab in the middle of the Middle East?

I'll wait while you brush up on your basic history.

As strange as it might seem to you, some of us have the cognitive capacity to recognize the injustice of more than one country's or region's actions.

Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.

And here I was worried that he wouldn't be as entertaining as Rummy.

I learned that lesson when Gonzales replaced Ashcroft, and was reminded of it when Tony Snow took over as Press Secretary--the one thing you can count on in this administration is that there is always someone worse in the pipeline.

Cute. You can thank the French and the English for that particular fiasco, when they decided to carve up the Ottoman Empire between them for....

...can we get a drumroll?


...THE OIL after the first World War.


Got to love the hypocrisy of Europe there, don't you? Oh, and who created Israel? Who "gave" them the land smack dab in the middle of the Middle East?

I'll wait while you brush up on your basic history.

Yep. Europe screwed over the Middle East too. Well, bits of it, anyways. Ghengis Khan wasn't exactly friendly when he came knocking either. So therefore any complaints from Asia are hypocritical. Right?

Its just so lovely how you got such a titled article from Al-Jazeera. :rolleyes:

What are you insinuating about al-Jazeera? It has more journalistic integrity than all American networks combined.

What a dumbass. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FD296B34-C16C-4F3D-BE37-FE7C4DE37825.htm)

I think ":rolleyes:" sums things up.

Uh...what the fuck?

Nice: I got the devil's number in posts.

What are you insinuating about al-Jazeera? It has more journalistic integrity than all American networks combined.
But it's got a funny sounding foreign name, that starts with "al-".
So they must be hate-filled, anti-American terrorislamofascinaziests.
Give me Fox! At least their right-thinking opinion pieces placate me and tell me what to think and say. Thus saving me valuable time.

But it's got a funny sounding foreign name, that starts with "al-".
So they must be hate-filled, anti-American terrorislamofascinaziests.
Give me Fox! At least their right-thinking opinion pieces placate me and tell me what to think and say. Thus saving me valuable time.

And they don't have a leftist bias!

IDK, if i was in charge of al-qaeda propaganda i would be pretty excited about a dem resolution saying that we didn't want to try to win the war. I would be extremely easy to use that to rally more support and kill more americans. So beyond helping the enemy and hurting our military it does nothing seeing as it carries no real power. So all it really is is political positioning that will get americans killed and hurt iraq.

IDK, if i was in charge of al-qaeda propaganda i would be pretty excited about a dem resolution saying that we didn't want to try to win the war. I would be extremely easy to use that to rally more support and kill more americans. So beyond helping the enemy and hurting our military it does nothing seeing as it carries no real power. So all it really is is political positioning that will get americans killed and hurt iraq.

So what you're saying is that a build-up of American troops automatically means we win?

IDK, if i was in charge of al-qaeda propaganda i would be pretty excited about a dem resolution saying that we didn't want to try to win the war.
Exactly, because not wanting to throw 21,000 troops into a meatgrinder with the same tried and failed strategy equates to not wanting to win the war.


So all it really is is political positioning that will get americans killed and hurt iraq.

No, sending more Americans into Iraq will get more Americans killed and hurt in Iraq.

So what you're saying is that a build-up of American troops automatically means we win?

Not at all. But it is our last chance unless you can think of something better.

So what you're saying is that a build-up of American troops automatically means we win?
Apparently.
He also seems to be saying that the Dems support for other ways to resolve this conflict are in fact saying they don't want to win.
Which is odd 'cause afaik, the Dems haven't released a statement saying they don't US to win.

someone's been watching too much Fox, methinks.

Exactly, because not wanting to throw 21,000 troops into a meatgrinder with the same tried and failed strategy equates to not wanting to win the war.

It's not the same strategy at all. We're embedding the new troops with iraqis. That has never been used en mass before. Whenever U.S. forces fight with iraqis they fight at almost the same level as we do it's just when they are left alone does the corruption sink in.


No, sending more Americans into Iraq will get more Americans killed and hurt in Iraq.
Yes it will. And yes it is necessary to win. In war people die and get hurt. If you aren't willing to accept that then we will never win another war again.

Apparently.
He also seems to be saying that the Dems support for other ways to resolve this conflict are in fact saying they don't want to win.
Which is odd 'cause afaik, the Dems haven't released a statement saying they don't US to win.

someone's been watching too much Fox, methinks.

What do the dems suggest that we do instead? Redeploy? If only they even fucking knew what that meant instead of giving it a new definition to sound PC. Leaving is losing.

What do the dems suggest that we do instead? Redeploy? If only they even fucking knew what that meant instead of giving it a new definition to sound PC. Leaving is losing.

Okay, you know what irritates me? People who slap the label PC on everything. How the hell is redeploy more 'Politically Correct' than leave?

It's not the same strategy at all.


Yes it is, just with 21,000 more troops, won't really make a difference, we learned this in Vietnam.

We're embedding the new troops with iraqis.

Oh good, so were making the Iraqi army totally dependent on ours, just like before.

Yes it is, just with 21,000 more troops, won't really make a difference, we learned this in Vietnam.

I think the problem lies in the fact that some people haven't.

What do the dems suggest that we do instead? Redeploy? If only they even fucking knew what that meant instead of giving it a new definition to sound PC. Leaving is losing.What are you trying to win?

If it's a stable, unified & sovereign Iraq, then past experiences would indicate that escalating the US presence undermines the chance of success.

If you're trying to annex the country, on the other hand, then the quip about Dems emboldening the 'enemy' makes perfect sense, as Iraq in totality is the enemy. But perhaps you should be honest about your intent if that's the case. It'd clear up a lot of confusion.

Okay, you know what irritates me? People who slap the label PC on everything. How the hell is redeploy more 'Politically Correct' than leave?

IDK, why don't you explain it to me? Redeploy just means to move about but stay in the same country/AO. Why would they re-define the words but to be more politically correct? They don't want to be able to be attacked for wanting to leave/surrender so they use a more obscure word.

Yes it is, just with 21,000 more troops, won't really make a difference, we learned this in Vietnam.



Oh good, so were making the Iraqi army totally dependent on ours, just like before.

In effect, we are combining the tactical proficiency of american forces with the intelligence proficiency of the iraqi forces to create a much more effective total force. I'll say again that this really hasn't been used on a large scale before. No matter how many times you cover your ears and say the same thing over and over again it doesn't change the truth.

what's the psychological condition called whereby you're obsessed to do the same thing over and over again even when it fails?

I believe that would be "insanity", Bob. Do I win the prize?


Yikes. I gotta wonder if, somehow, Bush isn't on Hilary's payroll...

Like this... he continues to do insanely stupid and wildly unpopular things, despite the fact that doing so has lost his party control of the Congress. He tells the country that he is not going to listen to or work with the Congress that they elected, and is going to go off and do what he wants anyway, despite the facts that most of the electorate has indicated that this is NOT what they want and that his policies in Iraq have been a demonstrable failure to date. By doing so, he alienates most anyone who might vote for a Republican candidate in the next election, opening the way for Hilary to step into the office by the largest landslide ever, even though many people don't really want her, but Bush is making the lesser of two evils look like such an obvious necessity that to NOT vote for her would be insanity that rivals Bush's own insanities.

On the other hand, maybe Bush is just an idiot in a president suit?

What are you trying to win?

If it's a stable, unified & sovereign Iraq, then past experiences would indicate that escalating the US presence undermines the chance of success.

If you're trying to annex the country, on the other hand, then the quip about Dems emboldening the 'enemy' makes perfect sense, as Iraq in totality is the enemy. But perhaps you should be honest about your intent if that's the case. It'd clear up a lot of confusion.

If we move towards a more complete integration of our forces with iraqi forces in more areas of iraq then we can see much more success. As this conversion is made you do not need nearly as many troops in iraq as we do now. This means that we can stay longer and help the iraqis gain the tactical proficiency that they need and change their culture a bit to help their efficiency and discipline. Then as those changes are made we can start making iraqi units autonomous and leave.

snip
Either that or the american people have made up their mind about a place they have never seen or been to.

In effect, we are combining the tactical proficiency of american forces with the intelligence proficiency of the iraqi forces to create a much more effective total force. I'll say again that this really hasn't been used on a large scale before. No matter how many times you cover your ears and say the same thing over and over again it doesn't change the truth.

And what happens when we leave?

The Iraqi army will immediately become corrupt, the line between them and shi'ite militias will blur. Sunni insurgents will begin fighting the Shi'ite militias and by extension, the Iraqi army. The civil war continues and we have a Rwanda-type of situation.

We need to make the Iraqi government and the Iraqi army independent from America's.

We need to make the Iraqi government and the Iraqi army independent from America's.And how will you pull that off, exactly?

If we move towards a more complete integration of our forces with iraqi forces in more areas of iraq then we can see much more success. As this conversion is made you do not need nearly as many troops in iraq as we do now. This means that we can stay longer and help the iraqis gain the tactical proficiency that they need and change their culture a bit to help their efficiency and discipline. Then as those changes are made we can start making iraqi units autonomous and leave.But how does that help, when neither forces nor government can achieve any degree of legitimacy as long as it's kept alive by the US?

And what does it have with the winning/losing thing?

And what happens when we leave?

The Iraqi army will immediately become corrupt, the line between them and shi'ite militias will blur. Sunni insurgents will begin fighting the Shi'ite militias and by extension, the Iraqi army. The civil war continues and we have a Rwanda-type of situation.

We need to make the Iraqi government and the Iraqi army independent from America's.

They aren't ready to be independent just yet. There are clear examples of iraqi units that are just as cohesive and noncorrupt as american units. One thing that also needs to be done is to disband the shiia militias. They are the #1 problem in iraq at this time.

Uh...what the fuck?

Nice: I got the devil's number in posts.

616?

And how will you pull that off, exactly?

Make the Iraqi infrastructure better than it was before Saddam's rule, Shi'ite militias are now providing Iraqis with better services than Maliki's government is, effectively making whole neighborhoods allied to them. Improve the training, equipment and size of the Iraqi Army so that they can guarantee the security of Iraqis, this will undermine the popular support the militias get. Further undermine the militias source of funding, so that they cannot corrupt the Iraq army.

And most importantly, Eliminate the culture of dependency within the Iraqi government and its army, make it known that we will be leaving sometime soon so that they actually try to be independent and functional.

Either that or the american people have made up their mind about a place they have never seen or been to.

Golly, do you mean to tell me that all that info I am getting from Fox's embedded journalists is not a real and accurate picture of events that are happening in Iraq? Boy do I feel silly.

Wake up. Enough access to information exists today that anyone who can read can see what is happening across the world. Information comes from so many sources that it is not necessary to actually GO to Iraq to see the effect that our policies are having both there and the rest of the world.

And if it comes to that, how much time has Bush spent on the ground in Iraq? How much actual first hand knowledge does he have? He has been there for photo ops and to entertain the troops, which makes him as qualified as a USO singer to make decisions about how a foriegn country should be run. But as he has stated publicly, he does not even avail himself of all the information that is easily accessible to everyone because he doesn't read newspapers. He asks his staff to tell him if there is anything he should know. So, even though he has actually been there, I am less confident in his knowledge of the world than I am in, say, your average fifth grader who has to do a current events report every morning in his social studies class.

I'd have to agree, Botswavia.

Golly, do you mean to tell me that all that info I am getting from Fox's embedded journalists is not a real and accurate picture of events that are happening in Iraq? Boy do I feel silly.

Wake up. Enough access to information exists today that anyone who can read can see what is happening across the world. Information comes from so many sources that it is not necessary to actually GO to Iraq to see the effect that our policies are having both there and the rest of the world.

No, you're wrong. You can't get a real feel for what is going on by reading how many casualties there are every day. One example of how the public perception is so off was the whole lack of body armor shit that was going through the media. A couple pogues said that our body armor wasn't protecting soldiers from ied's so the gov't had to waste millions of dollars. No body armor can protect you from an ied but everybody who watched cnn would have a completely different perception of reality.

And if it comes to that, how much time has Bush spent on the ground in Iraq? How much actual first hand knowledge does he have? He has been there for photo ops and to entertain the troops, which makes him as qualified as a USO singer to make decisions about how a foriegn country should be run. But since he as stated publicly, he does not even avail himself of all the information that is easily accessible to everyone because he doesn't read newspapers. He asks his staff to tell him if there is anything he should know. So, even though he has actually been there, I am less confident in his knowledge of the world than I am in, say, your average fifth grader who has to do a current events report every morning in his social studies class.
That is why he talked to people on the ground in iraq. It's not like he just woke up one morning and decided what he was gong to do. By virtue of his position he has to know much more about the reality on the ground than you.

IDK, why don't you explain it to me? Redeploy just means to move about but stay in the same country/AO. Why would they re-define the words but to be more politically correct? They don't want to be able to be attacked for wanting to leave/surrender so they use a more obscure word.

So, they changed the word, therefore it must be to be politically correct?

Politically advantageous may be the word you're looking for.

No, you're wrong. You can't get a real feel for what is going on by reading how many casualties there are every day. One example of how the public perception is so off was the whole lack of body armor shit that was going through the media. A couple pogues said that our body armor wasn't protecting soldiers from ied's so the gov't had to waste millions of dollars. No body armor can protect you from an ied but everybody who watched cnn would have a completely different perception of reality.

That might hold some water if the only source of information was CNN.


That is why he talked to people on the ground in iraq. It's not like he just woke up one morning and decided what he was gong to do. By virtue of his position he has to know much more about the reality on the ground than you.

It's not like that? You mean that attacking Iraq because we were fighting a war on terror against Osama bin Laden and because we KNEW there were WMD's in Iraq was a well thought out, highly studied and deeply considered policy? Then we are in more trouble than I thought.

I wish I felt he did know more than the rest of us. I fear, based on his behavior, this is not the case. Since there will never be an opportunity presented for anyone to get close enough to ask him really hard questions about what the heck he is doing, I must go with what I see in the news (from both the left leaning AND right leaning sides) and so many other sources of information and stick with my original thesis... Bush is either insane or an idiot.

So, they changed the word, therefore it must be to be politically correct?

Politically advantageous may be the word you're looking for.

Whatever works. The point is is that it just makes dems look like idiots to anyone with any military knowledge.

Whatever works. The point is is that it just makes dems look like idiots to anyone with any military knowledge.

to "redeploy" means, literally, to deploy again, nothing about the word suggests a location.

The point is that this line of argument makes you look like an idiot to anyone with any english knowledge.

to "redeploy" means, literally, to deploy again, nothing about the word suggests a location.

The point is that this line of argument makes you look like an idiot to anyone with any english knowledge.

That's right and you don't deploy to the United States. That is coming back from a deployment. Thanks for you support of my argument. You talking makes you look like an idiot. I would suggest stopping.

Whatever works. The point is is that it just makes dems look like idiots to anyone with any military knowledge.

Are you trying to say you are that person?

Are you trying to say you are that person?

The person who thinks that the dems look like idiots? Yes.

The person who thinks that the dems look like idiots? Yes.

So, your superior knowledge means that you know more than the Democrats in our government. Hmmm... but there is no way that anyone could know more than the Republicans?

Interesting... patently wrong, but interesting. You might want to have that bias looked at by a professional before it gets out of hand.

So, your superior knowledge means that you know more than the Democrats in our government. Hmmm... but there is no way that anyone could know more than the Republicans?

Interesting... patently wrong, but interesting. You might want to have that bias looked at by a professional before it gets out of hand.

Wgat the hell are you talking about? They are using extremely incorrect terminology. I see that they are and think that it makes them look like they are idiots. Where is the bias? If republicans tried to profess that they were much better with the military and showed a blatant lack of knowledge of anything military then they would also look like idiots to me.

Wgat the hell are you talking about? They are using extremely incorrect terminology. I see that they are and think that it makes them look like they are idiots. Where is the bias? If republicans tried to profess that they were much better with the military and showed a blatant lack of knowledge of anything military then they would also look like idiots to me.

I consider "nuclear" to be a pretty important term for military usage...

Also "deploy" means to put in a position of readiness, one can "deploy" to the united states as long as their military position was keps on call so to speak.

The Democrats and Republicans are trying to play the good cop bad cop game that's all. They both have the same interest but have different means in achieving those interests. America has managed to destroy the Iraqi society to the point where Iraqi citizens are at each others throats, but it seems this is the best time for most Americans to stop listening to Bush and leave that war-torn country called Iraq. I say this is a BIG mistake; leaving Iraq at this state is a crime, like leaving a dying person (which you caused it) on the ground. The whole world will see America as a trouble starter, and coward nation that seems to run away every time the tough gets going. I never agreed to the Iraqi war but, since America created this chaos, it is America that should fix it (there's no other nation that has the same military power and the financial power to do it) and oh yeah, the genie is out the bottle (no pun intended). Bush mad the ultimate mistake, he thought that if he can get away with everything in his own country from his own citizens, that he can do the same thing to other countries. He thought somehow sending hundreds of thousands of American troops, thousands of tanks and other sorts of weapons to Iraq and tell the Iraqis, "We are bringing Democracy and Freedom" :D that Iraqis would see Americans as "liberators" :p that Americans will be showered with "flowers" by Iraqis, while Iraqi people on TV just before the invasion said "oh the Americans will be showered alright but it wont be with flowers" :D You destroy their army, you destroy their police, you destroy their government, you further excited the Iraqi rift (Kurdish, Shia, and the Sunni) and now all you have say is, "well we trusted the president and now we know he was lying to us all the time, so we want to leave Iraq right now"-that's your best excuse? Just want to walk away from the shit you created, just like that, without any accountability, how are countries going to see this as. As for Iran, what if a hostile nation far away that called you an "axis of evil" just started attacking the two nations you share your borders with (lets say Mexico and Canada), you hear all sorts of chaos occurring within those two countries, the rule of law are gone from those two nations all thanks to that hostile enemy, that hostile country is attacking you in different means (sanctions). You know, that hostile country wants to create friendly governments in Canada and Mexico to undermine you. If you actually think Iran will put its head in sand and hope this problem would just disappear than you got something else coming. I doubt America would have behaved the same if Canada and Mexico were being attacked by a hostile nation, I bet America would help the freedom movements within Canada and Mexico, and especially I would expect American citizens being seen in both Canadian and Mexican borders if this case scenario were to be true. So why are you shocked when Iran is doing the same thing? Iranians are caught in Iraq and American command goes crazy about it, as if Iranians don’t belong to Iraq, are you forgetting that these two nations live side by side for thousands of years? It is the Americans who are the foreigners, they can’t even speak the language of the country they invaded, they’re 3000 miles away from their home, they don’t share the same culture or the same religion, so lets be realistic here.

I consider "nuclear" to be a pretty important term for military usage...

Also "deploy" means to put in a position of readiness, one can "deploy" to the united states as long as their military position was keps on call so to speak.

You could just agree to disagree, but that would deprive the rest of us of the enjoyment of two people trying to argue by correcting each other's English. :D

Keep going, this is interesting. I'm leaning so far towards the 'Bush is an idiot' theory that I'm practically horizontal, but I still want to know how people justify their thoughts on this not being so.

I consider "nuclear" to be a pretty important term for military usage...

Also "deploy" means to put in a position of readiness, one can "deploy" to the united states as long as their military position was keps on call so to speak.

Well said.

I consider "nuclear" to be a pretty important term for military usage...

Also "deploy" means to put in a position of readiness, one can "deploy" to the united states as long as their military position was keps on call so to speak.

We both know that that is not the state that american forces would be returning to the america as. They would be coming back in a peace time state. All bush does is pronounce nuclear with a different accent than you do. Not exactly changing definitions.

We both know that that is not the state that american forces would be returning to the america as.

I find it rather arrogant to presuppose you knowthe state of the american military.

All bush does is pronounce nuclear with a different accent than you do.

it's not a matter f placing an emphasis on the wrong syllable. He pronounces it wrongly, period. there's only one "u" sound in nuclear.

Not exactly changing definitions.

Which is worse, using a word wrongly or using a word that doesn't fucking exist?

I find it rather arrogant to presuppose you knowthe state of the american military.
Are you suggesting that we would leave iraq just to spend the same amount of money? No, unless there is a natural disaster or an attack on the U.S. they are not in a ready state.


it's not a matter f placing an emphasis on the wrong syllable. He pronounces it wrongly, period. there's only one "u" sound in nuclear.



Which is worse, using a word wrongly or using a word that doesn't fucking exist?

Look at the word obviously. W/ a philadelphia accent you don't say the b. With other accents you do. Neither way is necesarily wrong. Why don't you go to texas and see how they pronounce nuclear.

'scuse me, but I'm from Philly.

I can't think of what 'b' I don't say. Especially in the word 'nuclear', which doesn't HAVE a b

'scuse me, but I'm from Philly.

I can't think of what 'b' I don't say. Especially in the word 'nuclear', which doesn't HAVE a b

Then you don't have the accent. You would say oviously not obviously.

Are you suggesting that we would leave iraq just to spend the same amount of money? No, unless there is a natural disaster or an attack on the U.S. they are not in a ready state.




Look at the word obviously. W/ a philadelphia accent you don't say the b. With other accents you do. Neither way is necesarily wrong. Why don't you go to texas and see how they pronounce nuclear.

I've been to Texas. Many of them pronounce nuclear CORRECTLY. Bush does not. And it is not, as you suggest, merely a Texas accent thing. Many people all over the country pronounce it incorrectly, no matter what their accents are. Bush's pronunciation (which, like so many other things he refuses to correct even after having it explained to him) is simply wrong.

Oh...so I've lived here for a dozen years and in the city directly for 2 years...I don't think I've heard anyone say oviously.

The only pronunciation thing common here is replacing t with d...water = wader, butter = budder. That kind of thing.

Never heard it on a b.

Oh. and my boyfriend is from Tx. He can say nuclear just fine and he's lived there all his life

I've been to Texas. Many of them pronounce nuclear CORRECTLY. Bush does not. And it is not, as you suggest, merely a Texas accent thing. Many people all over the country pronounce it incorrectly, no matter what their accents are. Bush's pronunciation (which, like so many other things he refuses to correct even after having it explained to him) is simply wrong.

To you it's wrong. In the end it doesn't really matter as the whole point of the thread was that then bill embolden terrorists. Once nobody could think of a reason why it didn't they changed the argument to about english

Oh...so I've lived here for a dozen years and in the city directly for 2 years...I don't think I've heard anyone say oviously.

The only pronunciation thing common here is replacing t with d...water = wader, butter = budder. That kind of thing.

Never heard it on a b.

Oh. and my boyfriend is from Tx. He can say nuclear just fine and he's lived there all his life

I've lived in philly my entire life also. Just try and enunciate the b clearly in the word obviously. It just sounds weird. It takes too long to say.

No, we switched to it because you brought up a stupid point that could be easily refuted.

And it doesn't sound the slightest bit strange to me. There's a natural slight pause after 'ob'.

Maybe it's just a case of education

No, we switched to it because you brought up a stupid point that could be easily refuted.

And it doesn't sound the slightest bit strange to me. There's a natural slight pause after 'ob'.

Maybe it's just a case of education

I really don' think you should insult my education seeing as you don't even know me. My point was never refuted. Democracts changed the meaning of the word redeploy to avert accusations of surrendering and anybody who knows what it actually means can see that. Can we get back on topic on how the new bill helps america or iraq?

And... not to belabor an obvious point, but the b in obvious, whether emphasized or not (and in Philly, they do not drop it entirely, they just slide over it) is not a complete mispronunciation. Nuclear. Nukular. Two entirely different words. One doesn't even exist.

Sorry, accent does not substitute for idiocy in this case.

And... not to belabor an obvious point, but the b in obvious, whether emphasized or not (and in Philly, they do not drop it entirely, they just slide over it) is not a complete mispronunciation. Nuclear. Nukular. Two entirely different words. One doesn't even exist.

Sorry, accent does not substitute for idiocy in this case.

Fine look at how americans and canadians say "z." One says zee and the other zed. They are both correct. Both understand what the other is saying so it really doesn't matter.

But that's as an individual letter. The British also say zed, while you're at it.

In words with Z, they don't pronounce it any differently.

I really don' think you should insult my education seeing as you don't even know me.

You do a fairly good job at insulting yoursel.

My point was never refuted. Democracts changed the meaning of the word redeploy to avert accusations of surrendering and anybody who knows what it actually means can see that.

Surrender...to whom?

Can we get back on topic on how the new bill helps america or iraq?

Isn't that a lot like asking "so, when did you stop beating your wife?"

You do a fairly good job at insulting yoursel.
Ouch, good one.:rolleyes:


Surrender...to whom?
To insurgents in iraq and to al-qaeda.



Isn't that a lot like asking "so, when did you stop beating your wife?"

No not really.

No, we switched to it because you brought up a stupid point that could be easily refuted.



Yea im regretting lowering myself to your level.

So, instead of 'surrendering' to al-qaeda and the insurgents, we should send another 20,000 men to get killed in Iraq?

One wonders whose side you're really on.

So, instead of 'surrendering' to al-qaeda and the insurgents, we should send another 20,000 men to get killed in Iraq?

One wonders whose side you're really on.

It's not the same strategy at all. We're embedding the new troops with iraqis. That has never been used en mass before. Whenever U.S. forces fight with iraqis they fight at almost the same level as we do it's just when they are left alone does the corruption sink in. In war people die and get hurt. If you aren't willing to accept that then we will never win another war again.

I really don' think you should insult my education seeing as you don't even know me. My point was never refuted. Democracts changed the meaning of the word redeploy to avert accusations of surrendering and anybody who knows what it actually means can see that. Can we get back on topic on how the new bill helps america or iraq?

Hold on a sec. Redeploy means to move troops to where they are more needed and would serve us better. No redefining here. But if you would prefer to think of taking our troops out of a country where they are being killed for no good reason, and from where they should never have been sent in the first place as surrender, go right ahead. Let's surrender! Let's give up a fight that we should not have picked to start off with! Hurray for us, let's protect our soldiers by getting them the hell out of there! Happy?

And if you want to talk about misdirection, how about the multitudinous misdirections that got us INTO this war in the first place. Let's talk about deploying troops to a country in which we knew Osama wasn't on the pretext of catching Osama. Let's talk about redefining the "War on Terror" midstream (what was it that Bush tried to call it for a while? "Global struggle for blah blah blah?" And notice how fast THAT got dropped when everyone spoke out about what bullshit it was?) Let's talk about directly ignoring the reports of the UN inspectors who said "No WMD's in Iraq" and managing, with NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to bamboozle half of this country into believing (and how many of them STILL believe) that there WERE WMD's? Even after our own report, the 9/11 commission, said "No WMD's and terrorists were not at all associated with Iraq".

If, after all that, you are going to be upset just because Democrats prefer to avoid the word surrender in attempting to get our soldiers out of there and bring them home, well... that is kind of sad.

It's not the same strategy at all. We're embedding the new troops with iraqis. That has never been used en mass before. Whenever U.S. forces fight with iraqis they fight at almost the same level as we do it's just when they are left alone does the corruption sink in. In war people die and get hurt. If you aren't willing to accept that then we will never win another war again.

If we haven't been embedding troops then the whole "training Iraqies" plan is a farce.

Look, I accept that in wars people die and get hurt, on both sides.

If we embed Americans with the Iraqis, at what point do we yank the Americans out and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves? As you say, "it's just when they are left alone does the corruption sink in", does that mean we're there forever?

Hold on a sec. Redeploy means to move troops to where they are more needed and would serve us better. No redefining here.
Yes that is redefining

But if you would prefer to think of taking our troops out of a country where they are being killed for no good reason, and from where they should never have been sent in the first place as surrender, go right ahead. Let's surrender! Let's give up a fight that we should not have picked to start off with! Hurray for us, let's protect our soldiers by getting them the hell out of there! Happy?
They aren't being killed for no good reason. I like how the democratic party has turned into the Hawk party. Only in it for america. Our soldiers don't need your protection.

And if you want to talk about misdirection, how about the multitudinous misdirections that got us INTO this war in the first place. Let's talk about deploying troops to a country in which we knew Osama wasn't on the pretext of catching Osama. Let's talk about redefining the "War on Terror" midstream (what was it that Bush tried to call it for a while? "Global struggle for blah blah blah?" And notice how fast THAT got dropped when everyone spoke out about what bullshit it was?) Let's talk about directly ignoring the reports of the UN inspectors who said "No WMD's in Iraq" and managing, with NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to bamboozle half of this country into believing (and how many of them STILL believe) that there WERE WMD's? Even after our own report, the 9/11 commission, said "No WMD's and terrorists were not at all associated with Iraq".
We said that iraq had a WMD program and that is true. We said there were terrorists in iraq and that is true. Not necesarily al-qaeda but terrorists none the less.

If we haven't been embedding troops then the whole "training Iraqies" plan is a farce.

You don't need to embed in a unit to put iraqis through training.:rolleyes: You make no sense at all.

Look, I accept that in wars people die and get hurt, on both sides.

If we embed Americans with the Iraqis, at what point do we yank the Americans out and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves? As you say, "it's just when they are left alone does the corruption sink in", does that mean we're there forever?

My earlier point was that if out entire footprint is logistics and embeds then it doesn't need to be nearly as large. We give a unit a certain amount of time to conduct independent operations and if they are successful during that time then we move onto a different unit.

But if we leave those Iraqis to themselves...oooooh, we can't do that.

We've built a culture of dependence in Iraq. The Iraqi government depends on us to be there (the lot of good we do anyway :rolleyes:), and so we are going to keep sending troops there to get killed until someone with some sense on one side or the other puts a stop to it.

I don't think that we need to throw tens of thousands more troops into Iraq. In fact, yes, I do support withdrawal of the troops. That's right. I think we should start a phased withdrawal out of Iraq before even more of our troops die.

Because, let's face it. What good are we doing there, so far? The citizens in Baghdad, prior to our arrival, got more or less around the clock electricity. Now they get about 6 hours a day. Yes, Saddam was a dictator and killed millions, but have we killed less? Oil production is down, so we're not even getting what we came for. And there were no WMDs when we came to Iraq, despite what you seem to think

Yes that is redefining


They aren't being killed for no good reason. I like how the democratic party has turned into the Hawk party. Only in it for america. Our soldiers don't need your protection.

Sorry... I should have said "for no good reason except to protect the economic interests of a very few highly placed Americans". Better? And, oBviously, our soldiers DO need my protection, and the protection of others who think as I do, because they ARE being killed in droves at the behest of people who think as you do.


We said that iraq had a WMD program and that is true. We said there were terrorists in iraq and that is true. Not necesarily al-qaeda but terrorists none the less.

We ORIGINALLY said that Iraq had WMD's. When that proved to be false, we changed (dare I say redefined?) our tune to say "No, what we meant was they had a WMD PROGRAM", not even a capability to produce WMD's, merely a research program. Any country in the world with a computer and an internet connection has a WMD program.

Every country in the world also houses terrorists. So why are we not attacking Portugal, Ireland, Canada or looking for our own, homegrown terrorists? Why do abortion clinics still get blown up? How is it that the ELF are still around? Again, ORIGINALLY our "War on Terror", which was expressed as an unprovoked attack on Iraq, was to capture Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Never mind the fact that he was in Afghanistan at the time, and all our efforts to track him there proved fruitless. When it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, once again our tune was changed (yes, redefined) to say "No, we meant IRAQI terrorists! Look, they are killing our soldiers!", who, if you have been paying any attention here, would not even have BEEN in the line of fire in the first place, had they not been deployed on false pretenses.

We've built a culture of dependence in Iraq. The Iraqi government depends on us to be there (the lot of good we do anyway :rolleyes:), and so we are going to keep sending troops there to get killed until someone with some sense on one side or the other puts a stop to it.
I disagree that we've build a culture of dependence. You have to understand that americans work so much more than any other place in the world. Their inherent culture makes them much less willing to do the necesary work to fix their country. That is why they need help until that culture changes.
I don't think that we need to throw tens of thousands more troops into Iraq. In fact, yes, I do support withdrawal of the troops. That's right. I think we should start a phased withdrawal out of Iraq before even more of our troops die.
The years of anarchy and civil war and possibly regional war does not conscern you at all. That seems a bit selfish to me. We got 'em in this mess it is our job to get them out.

Because, let's face it. What good are we doing there, so far? The citizens in Baghdad, prior to our arrival, got more or less around the clock electricity. Now they get about 6 hours a day. Yes, Saddam was a dictator and killed millions, but have we killed less? Oil production is down, so we're not even getting what we came for. And there were no WMDs when we came to Iraq, despite what you seem to think

And if we leave they will get all that electricity back? Will oil production go up when we leave? Yes we have killed less.

There's already a civil war in Iraq, in case you hadn't realized.

Are we doing anything to give them their electricity back?

And we got 'em in this mess because of a certain commander-in-chief who started a war for really no good reason at all. I don't think we CAN fix this mess. And certainly, certainly not by throwing more troops in. We've already lost the respect of most of the world. I think that the United States has put itself in a very difficult position, because it's going to take decades for us to regain any trust from the world, and even longer if we keep our asses in Iraq.

There's already a civil war in Iraq, in case you hadn't realized.
No there isn't. In case you hadn't realized, sunnis and shiias serve in the same gov't. There are a few militias causing problems but they aren't in open full scale war.

Are we doing anything to give them their electricity back?
Believe it or not.


And we got 'em in this mess because of a certain commander-in-chief who started a war for really no good reason at all. I don't think we CAN fix this mess. And certainly, certainly not by throwing more troops in. We've already lost the respect of most of the world. I think that the United States has put itself in a very difficult position, because it's going to take decades for us to regain any trust from the world, and even longer if we keep our asses in Iraq.
Again, we're not just throwing more troops in. We're trying a new strategy that needs more troops to get it jumpstarted. No, we really lose the trust of the world if we go into a country, fuck it up, leave and create genocide and WWIII.

Oh, so hundreds of Iraqis killed EVERY day doesn't indicate some kind of problem in the country? And sunnis and shi'as serve in the same government...one that clearly cannot handle much at all in the country. Then you've got the militas and death squads who seem to be doing a lot more than their government does (and no, I'm not condoning a single thing they do). There IS a civil war there right now, however much Bush says there isn't.

Oh, so hundreds of Iraqis killed EVERY day doesn't indicate some kind of problem in the country? And sunnis and shi'as serve in the same government...one that clearly cannot handle much at all in the country. Then you've got the militas and death squads who seem to be doing a lot more than their government does (and no, I'm not condoning a single thing they do). There IS a civil war there right now, however much Bush says there isn't.

Tit for tat attacks against specific communities doesn't constitute civil war.

Again, we're not just throwing more troops in. We're trying a new strategy that needs more troops to get it jumpstarted. No, we really lose the trust of the world if we go into a country, fuck it up, leave and create genocide and WWIII.

Answer me two questions:

1) why has this new and brilliant strategy, being so brilliant, not been done before in Iraq. Do you really believe our military is so vastly incompetant that it took them three years to think of this?

2) why does it require more troops? Why could it not be implemented on a unit by unit, experimental basis, until we're sure it works before we send more people to die?

Okay. Let's look at the definition of civil war, shall we?

civil war
n.
1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization

The Shi'as and the Sunnis are fighting each other and the civilians of the country. Multiple factions. Fighting each other.

Okay. Let's look at the definition of civil war, shall we?

civil war
n.
1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization

The Shi'as and the Sunnis are fighting each other and the civilians of the country. Multiple factions. Fighting each other.

Most aren't fighting. If you use that definition of civil war then gang wars in the U.S. also constitute civil war.

Yes it will. And yes it is necessary to win. In war people die and get hurt. If you aren't willing to accept that then we will never win another war again.
Yes... killing more people is required to win the war against Iraq... the fact that Saddam was captured in December 2003 and that there's been a new government in the nation you declared war on for years means nothing.

Seriously, we went in to take out Saddam, steal oil and find weapons of mass destruction that the UN said didn't exist.

We've taken Saddam out of power. He's even been hung.
We've put in a puppet government to secure the oil exporting status of Iraq.
We've searched the entire nation and not found the WMDs.

Our duty to Iraq is over. We've done what we came to do, and the insurgency now is the problem of the new government. Why should our soldiers die protecting some other nation? Do you see American troops backing up the Korian police? Iraq needs to stand on it's own two feet and stop killing off our soldiers.

We went in. We messed things up. I don't think we should have gone in, but we did.

And we realised we couldn't leave things messed up, so we helped set up a just and democratic government. We nursed and nurtured them.

But now it's time to cut the apron strings. Iraq needs it's own independance. It needs to rule itself without foriegn soldiers killing off it's citizens.

Iraq should be forced to expand it's own army in order to deal with its own problems. It's been four years for crying out loud!

The job is not done. There's a LOT of work left to be done. But it's Iraq's work to do.

snip

Four years is a bit on the low side for creating an entirely new military and gov't. We have to see this to the end. Otherwise the title of superpower means nothing. Does integrity mean nothing to anybody?

On a side note, shut up about the oil.

Four years is a bit on the low side for creating an entirely new military and gov't. We have to see this to the end. Otherwise the title of superpower means nothing. Does integrity mean nothing to anybody?

It means a whole lot. In fact, you want to know my primary definition of integrity?

When you go on and invade a nation, overthrow their government, and install a new regime, know what you're going to do before fucking hand.

That is integrity.

On a side note, shut up about the oil.

Once you provide a reason why we should believe that oil was not a motivating factor.

It means a whole lot. In fact, you want to know my primary definition of integrity?

When you go on and invade a nation, overthrow their government, and install a new regime, know what you're going to do before fucking hand.

That is integrity.
True. That is why i said anybody. We can't use someone else's lack of integrity to excuse ours.


Once you provide a reason why we should believe that oil was not a motivating factor.

Since you are the one accusing the burden of proof is on you. One piece of evidence is that our primary effort is not on providing security for oil pipelines.

Yes that is redefining
We said that iraq had a WMD program and that is true. We said there were terrorists in iraq and that is true. Not necesarily al-qaeda but terrorists none the less.

They very term, Weapons of Mass Destruction, is deceptive. It's a scare tactic designed to make a country appear much more dangerous then it is. It basically means, "Whatever Weapons we think you are scared of."

You don't need to embed in a unit to put iraqis through training.:rolleyes: You make no sense at all.

Um, how do you seriously transfer responsibility to a newly trained army without going through a process where you embed troops, advisors, consultants, etc? It's how we began Viet Nam, how have we not reached that stage yet here? Are we farther behind then we were at the start of Viet Nam?

No there isn't. In case you hadn't realized, sunnis and shiias serve in the same gov't. There are a few militias causing problems but they aren't in open full scale war.

Believe it or not.

Again, we're not just throwing more troops in. We're trying a new strategy that needs more troops to get it jumpstarted. No, we really lose the trust of the world if we go into a country, fuck it up, leave and create genocide and WWIII.

Um, what would it take for you to admit Iraq is in a state of civil war?

We need new troops in there because the troops in there are over worked. The administration has attempted to fight this war underfunded. We need to cycle the current troops out, cycle new troops in, and greatly reduce the number of US Troops on the ground. It's time to rally the rest of the world to again send troops in.

And they'll do it, as soon as we change leaders.

Okay folks, two simple points.

1) East Pusna is a Bushevik. End of story.

2) Iraq is in a civil war, and the troops surge is just going to make it last longer and kill more Americans.

Four years is a bit on the low side for creating an entirely new military and gov't. We have to see this to the end. Otherwise the title of superpower means nothing. Does integrity mean nothing to anybody?

On a side note, shut up about the oil.

Well I thought you were doing ok until this.

Integrity...you are having laugh.

The US lost that claim about 50 odd years ago. And I am being very kind.

Well I thought you were doing ok until this.

Integrity...you are having laugh.

The US lost that claim about 50 odd years ago. And I am being very kind.

Nations can't claim integrity, the only way to preserve a nation is by shedding blood.

What the US can claim is the most powerful military in the world, and a political system that leads to less spilling of it's own civilians blood.

We said that iraq had a WMD program and that is true. We said there were terrorists in iraq and that is true. Not necesarily al-qaeda but terrorists none the less.

Whoa!!! You have lost it right here.

Who the fuck created the 'terrorists/insurgents' in Iraq??? Were there terrorists in Iraq (Shia/Sunni) before the US and UK decided to embark on a foolish colonial escapade?

Nations can't claim integrity, the only way to preserve a nation is by shedding blood.

What the US can claim is the most powerful military in the world, and a political system that leads to less spilling of it's own civilians blood.

Huh? Nations can't claim integrity? They claim whatever the fuck they want mate...whether its true or not is for the people to decide.

The most powerful military in the world...that can't even subdue a city....

They very term, Weapons of Mass Destruction, is deceptive. It's a scare tactic designed to make a country appear much more dangerous then it is. It basically means, "Whatever Weapons we think you are scared of."
No it pretty much means NBC weapons.


Um, how do you seriously transfer responsibility to a newly trained army without going through a process where you embed troops, advisors, consultants, etc? It's how we began Viet Nam, how have we not reached that stage yet here? Are we farther behind then we were at the start of Viet Nam?
Yea, that is what the new strategy is about. It was used in the later stages of vietnam but was cut short b/c of the anti-war effort.


Um, what would it take for you to admit Iraq is in a state of civil war?
Open war w/ specific groups declaring all out war against other specific groups.
We need new troops in there because the troops in there are over worked. The administration has attempted to fight this war underfunded. We need to cycle the current troops out, cycle new troops in, and greatly reduce the number of US Troops on the ground. It's time to rally the rest of the world to again send troops in.

And they'll do it, as soon as we change leaders.
Thats fair.

Okay folks, two simple points.

1) East Pusna is a Bushevik. End of story.

2) Iraq is in a civil war, and the troops surge is just going to make it last longer and kill more Americans.

Any evidence for either assertion? I already stated that bush has no integrity. So how am i a bushevik again?

Whoa!!! You have lost it right here.

Who the fuck created the 'terrorists/insurgents' in Iraq??? Were there terrorists in Iraq (Shia/Sunni) before the US and UK decided to embark on a foolish colonial escapade?

Yes they were. In iraq, an sf unit found a building w/ explosives that was being used in experiments for getting by metal detectors with bombs. I'm trying to find the video on youtube but it was originally by national geographic.

Yes they were. In iraq, an sf unit found a building w/ explosives that was being used in experiments for getting by metal detectors with bombs. I'm trying to find the video on youtube but it was originally by national geographic.

Right....and these explosives...were they nuclear?

Right....and these explosives...were they nuclear?

The part w/ the terrorists starts at about 6:00

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3LdIuKH7WPs


and continues in the beginning part here

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PyJKEI7tH80


It was a building being used by terrorists to experiment with methods to get by airport security to kill hundreds of americans and other nationalities.

Four years is a bit on the low side for creating an entirely new military and gov't. We have to see this to the end. Otherwise the title of superpower means nothing. Does integrity mean nothing to anybody?

On a side note, shut up about the oil.
It took about twelve years for the USA to set up it's own entirely new government. It took their French allies less than a year to GTFO of their new nation. And because of this, you had the American Civil war much later.

Right now, Iraq wants to have its own Civil War. The overthrowing of the old government has caused a lot of upset, and now they want to duke it out to determin what ideology they will support. But instead of the Iraqi's deciding the future of Iraq, we've installed a puppet government and are forcing them to do things our way by having our armed forces in their nation.

Iraq's gotta do what Iraq's gotta do. Nobody held America's hand by installing troops and said "you're gonna have a slavery free democracy like everyone else". The people of America were allowed to fight for what they believed in for the future of their nation.

We've paved the way for democracy. We've got rid of an unjust dictator. We've set up a government. We've allowed that government to develope it's own military.

It is the Iraqi people who are fighting this government and Collatition Troops defending this government. We're an invading nation forcing our own values on others. Let the Iraqi's have the government they deserve. If they want democracy, then they should fight for it - just like every other nation in history has had to. And if the Iraqi people support the insurgency then we need to stop being the evil invading nation and give the people what they want.

On a side note: I'm British. We went to war for one reason only - Iraq supposedly threatened the world with WMDs. Shut up about integrity.

Yes they were. In iraq, an sf unit found a building w/ explosives that was being used in experiments for getting by metal detectors with bombs. I'm trying to find the video on youtube but it was originally by national geographic.

You're right, there were a handful of Terrorists in Iraq before the regime change. Unfortunately the US presence in Iraq, during the current civil war, serves those groups who are opposed to the west in their efforts to recruit more Terrorists.

Some of today's Terrorists are very, very, young.

The part w/ the terrorists starts at about 6:00

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3LdIuKH7WPs


and continues in the beginning part here

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PyJKEI7tH80


It was a building being used by terrorists to experiment with methods to get by airport security to kill hundreds of americans and other nationalities.

So going from explosives to ways of counteracting security devices...right.

US intelligence and law enforcement agencies do the same...are you saying that Americans are also now terrorists? The Brits, Germans and oh...probably most other nations have the same kind of projects...guess we are surrounded by state sponsored terrorists.

You have not followed this through really have you?

Now...back to the WMD...as per your post I quoted...please...be my guest.

Oh! Surprise surprise...there WERE NO WMD!

I know you are having problems understanding this but a few shells (that if they had been used would have most likely killed the gun crew) do not constitute a state run WMD programme.

You're right, there were a handful of Terrorists in Iraq before the regime change. Unfortunately the US presence in Iraq, during the current civil war, serves those groups who are opposed to the west in their efforts to recruit more Terrorists.

Some of today's Terrorists are very, very, young.

And would you be thinking of the Mujaheddin e Khalq? The ANTI IRANIAN group?

So going from explosives to ways of counteracting security devices...right.
Did you watch the movie? They had explosive detectors to experiment with.

US intelligence and law enforcement agencies do the same...are you saying that Americans are also now terrorists? The Brits, Germans and oh...probably most other nations have the same kind of projects...guess we are surrounded by state sponsored terrorists.
That is probably the biggest piece of illogical bullshit that i have ever read. It just makes me feel stupid having to respond to it. How are america, germany and britain planning terror attacks?


Now...back to the WMD...as per your post I quoted...please...be my guest.

Oh! Surprise surprise...there WERE NO WMD!

I know you are having problems understanding this but a few shells (that if they had been used would have most likely killed the gun crew) do not constitute a state run WMD programme.
Many former iraqi nuclear scientists have come forward and said that there was a program. Surprise surprise, another idiot who can't think for themselves.

To you it's wrong. In the end it doesn't really matter as the whole point of the thread was that then bill embolden terrorists. Once nobody could think of a reason why it didn't they changed the argument to about english

We don't have to prove it doesn't, YOU have to prove it DOES. Nobody has to prove a negative.

Did you watch the movie? They had explosive detectors to experiment with.


That is probably the biggest piece of illogical bullshit that i have ever read. It just makes me feel stupid having to respond to it. How are america, germany and britain planning terror attacks?



Many former iraqi nuclear scientists have come forward and said that there was a program. Surprise surprise, another idiot who can't think for themselves.

Son...the fact is that you tried to move away from the issue of WMD's to some crap about avoiding detectors.

If you are not able to follow the thread then that is your issue...not mine. At best your attempt at logic fails. At worst your logic could kill.

Iraqi scientists admit there was a WMD programme. There was. It was also shut down well before Shrubs pathetic temper tantrum.

Now get back to your homework.

Cute. You can thank the French and the English for that particular fiasco, when they decided to carve up the Ottoman Empire between them for....

...can we get a drumroll?


...THE OIL after the first World War.


Got to love the hypocrisy of Europe there, don't you? Oh, and who created Israel? Who "gave" them the land smack dab in the middle of the Middle East?

I'll wait while you brush up on your basic history.
Tit for tat and btw, there is a drumroll in this video :D :

Robert Newman History of Oil (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967&q)

Ummm...

"That's what his mom said."

We don't have to prove it doesn't, YOU have to prove it DOES. Nobody has to prove a negative.

Hey that reminds me of the whole oil motive thing. Thats what i've been trying to do the entire time.

Son...the fact is that you tried to move away from the issue of WMD's to some crap about avoiding detectors.

If you are not able to follow the thread then that is your issue...not mine. At best your attempt at logic fails. At worst your logic could kill.

Iraqi scientists admit there was a WMD programme. There was. It was also shut down well before Shrubs pathetic temper tantrum.

Now get back to your homework.

1) No i didn't move away from WMD.

2) You are making an assertion about something that you don't have proof of.

3) You're logic that b/c americans have explosives that they are terrorists is so horrendus i'm surprised that you can remember to breathe

4) Don't call me son

1) No i didn't move away from WMD.

2) You are making an assertion about something that you don't have proof of.

3) You're logic that b/c americans have explosives that they are terrorists is so horrendus i'm surprised that you can remember to breathe

4) Don't call me son

1 - I don't think he is referring to you in particular but ot the pro - war corwd in general, of which you seem to be a part.

2 - It's mot an assertion it is his opinion. Hell of a difference.

3 - The poster is trying to point out that other nations are highly likely to conduct the self same experinments, ergo the fact the Iraqis were doing this is not proof they were supporting terrorism.

4 - Your choice.

1) No i didn't move away from WMD.

2) You are making an assertion about something that you don't have proof of.

3) You're logic that b/c americans have explosives that they are terrorists is so horrendus i'm surprised that you can remember to breathe

4) Don't call me son

Um....yes you did. You mentioned WMD...I asked about it and you posted some piffle about a programme for defeating security scanners...which has got absolutely bugger all to to with your first post regarding WMD. What happened? Did you lose your script?

My assertion? Regrading what? Your failure in logic? Its here for all to see, son...

No...that was based on your post...good grief...are you that addled that you don't remember what you post? Mind you ... you already have a record of that right here in this very thread! doh!

Ok...should I call you dipshit instead? Coz so far, son, you are as capable of debate as a 2 year old...and you are actually insulting those who are over there in Iraq.

Now get back to your homework, son.

This is 2006...not 2002... :rolleyes:

Um....yes you did. You mentioned WMD...I asked about it and you posted some piffle about a programme for defeating security scanners...which has got absolutely bugger all to to with your first post regarding WMD. What happened? Did you lose your script?

You came in during the middle of a discussion. I'm not gonna drop what im doing to talk to you.

My assertion? Regrading what? Your failure in logic? Its here for all to see, son...
I said that there were terrorist training camps in iraq. That video is proof. Where is the failure in logic?


No...that was based on your post...good grief...are you that addled that you don't remember what you post? Mind you ... you already have a record of that right here in this very thread! doh!
You need to learn how to write. Your posts are some of the hardest things to follow. I'll say it again, if you have stockpiled weapons, bombs disguised as things such as umbrellas and bomb detector equipment to use for experiments i don't think that you can get much more evidence that they are terrorists.


Ok...should I call you dipshit instead? Coz so far, son, you are as capable of debate as a 2 year old...and you are actually insulting those who are over there in Iraq.

Uhhh, you could call me East Pusna. Actually, no im not insulting "those" who are over there. Any pougue is worth 1000 of you.



This is 2006...not 2002... :rolleyes:
This is a site for debate. That means you try and make logical points. Good luck.

1 - I don't think he is referring to you in particular but ot the pro - war corwd in general, of which you seem to be a part.
I believe his words were along the line of "you" tried to change the subject. That is pretty specific towards me.

2 - It's mot an assertion it is his opinion. Hell of a difference.
He's presenting it as fact which makes it an assertion.

3 - The poster is trying to point out that other nations are highly likely to conduct the self same experinments, ergo the fact the Iraqis were doing this is not proof they were supporting terrorism.
I really don't think that U.S. is likely to booby trap a house, use it to experiment w/ getting by our own security and disguising explosives.

I'll say it again, if you have stockpiled weapons, bombs disguised as things such as umbrellas and bomb detector equipment to use for experiments i don't think that you can get much more evidence that they are terrorists.

Sounds more like a visit to the set of 'Q' Division from the Bond films to me.

Hey that reminds me of the whole oil motive thing. Thats what i've been trying to do the entire time.

Shiatsu.

Which means you're doing the same thing you're criticizing others for. What's the name of that again?

We said that iraq had a WMD program and that is true. We said there were terrorists in iraq and that is true. Not necesarily al-qaeda but terrorists none the less.

I asked you about this and you started bleating about terror groups...(oh and by the way...the only thing I posted regarding terror groups pre invasion was the anti Iranian group that was operating in Iraq...there was also the PKK...if you had the ability to think you might have been able to make the connection...I don't know...maybe I was expecting too much...)

You came in during the middle of a discussion. I'm not gonna drop what im doing to talk to you.

Please...that is just lame.


I said that there were terrorist training camps in iraq. That video is proof. Where is the failure in logic?

Once again...I never disputed there where terror groups in Iraq...on anti Iranian and the other was the PKK...

You need to learn how to write. Your posts are some of the hardest things to follow. I'll say it again, if you have stockpiled weapons, bombs disguised as things such as umbrellas and bomb detector equipment to use for experiments i don't think that you can get much more evidence that they are terrorists.

And this is really where you lose it. Since when has an umbrella been a WMD? You see...this is your problem...you are trying to move this away from your ludicrous statement that the reason we invaded Iraq (WMD) has been vindicated....despite there having been NO WMD found. YOu can bleat all you want but this is the fundamental truth that you need to realise. Your President and my Prime Minister took us to war on a lie.

You mentioned the part about the Iraqi's admitting that there was a WMD programme...there was...(helped along by the West) but that was stopped from the end of GW1 to the turn of the century. I asked you to provide proof of your assertion that there was WMD...which not surprisingly you have not been able to do.

You find my posting style hard to read? Well so far, based on what you have posted I think I can understand why.


Uhhh, you could call me East Pusna. Actually, no im not insulting "those" who are over there. Any pougue is worth 1000 of you.

No..I think idiot would be much more apt. And yes you are insulting those over there because you are trying to perpetuate this myth that the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was due to WMD....which there wasn't any. As for your dig regarding pougue...I am cut to the core...I...I don't think I can face being insulted by someone who most likely would be out thought by a sea sponge.

This is a site for debate. That means you try and make logical points. Good luck.

Obviously they are just words to you...words with little meaning...because so far you have failed miserably.

And this is really where you lose it. Since when has an umbrella been a WMD? You see...this is your problem...you are trying to move this away from your ludicrous statement that the reason we invaded Iraq (WMD) has been vindicated....despite there having been NO WMD found. YOu can bleat all you want but this is the fundamental truth that you need to realise. Your President and my Prime Minister took us to war on a lie.

You mentioned the part about the Iraqi's admitting that there was a WMD programme...there was...(helped along by the West) but that was stopped from the end of GW1 to the turn of the century. I asked you to provide proof of your assertion that there was WMD...which not surprisingly you have not been able to do.

You find my posting style hard to read? Well so far, based on what you have posted I think I can understand why.




No..I think idiot would be much more apt. And yes you are insulting those over there because you are trying to perpetuate this myth that the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was due to WMD....which there wasn't any. As for your dig regarding pougue...I am cut to the core...I...I don't think I can face being insulted by someone who most likely would be out thought by a sea sponge.



Obviously they are just words to you...words with little meaning...because so far you have failed miserably.

I never said that iraq had WMD's. Where the hell are you getting that from? Why do you feel the need to call me an idiot? Why can't you just debate like a civilized person? Is that too difficult for you?

I never said that iraq had WMD's.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12260698#post12260698

Where the hell are you getting that from?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12260698#post12260698

Why do you feel the need to call me an idiot?

Well if you can't figure it...

Why can't you just debate like a civilized person? Is that too difficult for you?

I doubt you even understand the nature of debate.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12260698#post12260698



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12260698#post12260698



Well if you can't figure it...



I doubt you even understand the nature of debate.

Again, i didn't say that they had WMD. Though they did have chem and bio weapons. I said that they had a WMD program. To further this point they were going to revamp the program after all the world attention was off of iraq. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0306/26/ltm.01.html

Again, i didn't say that they had WMD. Though they did have chem and bio weapons. I said that they had a WMD program. To further this point they were going to revamp the program after all the world attention was off of iraq. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0306/26/ltm.01.html

Sorry...but I think you are being disingenuous.

Sorry...but I think you are being disingenuous.

How so?

How so?

Lt. Cm. Data:

"My guess would be that you being disingenous in his mind involves the fact that you are carefully picking what statements you were supposed to make after the ones you actually made have been proven wrong."

Lt. Data:

"My guess would be that you being disingenous in his mind involves the fact that you are carefully picking what statements you were supposed to make after the ones you actually made have been proven wrong."

None of my statements contradict each other. He cited one of my posts and said that they said something that they didn't. I really don't see the problem.

If you can find somewhere where i said that iraq had nukes then be my guest.

None of my statements contradict each other. He cited one of my posts and said that they said something that they didn't. I really don't see the problem.

Lt. Cm. Data:

"And that would be another symptom of you being disingenous, in his mind. Was I helpful?"

Lt. Cm. Data:

"And that would be another symptom of you being disingenous, in his mind. Was I helpful?"

That was a quick promotion from Lt to Lt CM.

So to him if he can't find i way that im wrong im disingenous?.

That was a quick promotion from Lt to Lt CM.

So to him if he can't find i way that im wrong im disingenous?.

1- So I had to check on Wikipedia what Data's patent was.

2- I think he already did, but defending his point is up to him.

1- So I had to check on Wikipedia what Data's patent was.

2- I think he already did, but defending his point is up to him.

His point that if i had said something that i didn't say that i would be wrong?

His point that if i had said something that i didn't say that i would be wrong?

Not my problem.