M
Man of 1951
Guest
for the link....scroll up to the top or....http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/index.html#yugo
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pre-emptive Strike in Iraq
- Thread starter spillmind
- Start date
Why do you even bother, Spillmind, Man of 1951? This isn't an audience you can convince, they're so neck deep in their own bull shit.
BTW, there is NO connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The only person in the world who's still holding a flame for that piece of misinformation is the VP Haliburton. The CIA has long since dismissed it and even Bush was working it out of his speeches back in January. The original source, Czech Information service, said in 2002 that the whole story was bogus. You want sources, do one of your famous Google key word searches. This is common fucking knowledge at this point.
So, given that there was no 9-11 connection, given that there were no WMDs ( in spite of Jimnyc's fabulous source at freakin Hindustaan that says nothing more than what the Kuwaiti's say they've got.), given that there are many countries with definable connections to Al Qaeda (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, to start with) there is only one explanation for the war on Iraq. And it wasn't some humanitarian need to run around deposing dictators: there are dictators enough to choose from. Haliburton got one of the first contracts offered, and they got it without being required to bid. That's where the war starts to make sense.
Here is what Bush has managed in a few short months. By not waiting the few weeks that France, Germany, Russia, and even England was asking of us, we alienated the entire international community, we broke the agreements, and we left the UN a smouldering heap of uselessness. (And you jokers are wondering why the whole world isn't rushing to donate money to the cause...) In the process of begging for friends to support us, we caused an irreparable rift in the EU between the countries that aren't dependent on US dollars for their well being, and the poor eastern block countries that would like to be. We have done irreparable harm to our reputation, to our alliances, and by weakening the UN to the point of hilarity, we have irrevocably destabalized the world. Some of that, of course, is conjecture, we'll just have to wait and see.
Why did we do those things? So we could rush into Iraq, destroy the infrastructure and beaurocracy; create new generations of orphans to be seduced into terrorism; exchange a predictable and secular dictator with a destabalized and deeply divided religious population; demonstrate to the world as quickly and efficiently as possible that EVERY JUSTIFICATION FOR STARTING THE WAR WAS PATENTLY FALSE, IF NOT AN OUTRIGHT LIE. No connection to Al Qaeda, no WMDS and therefore no plea of self defence. And they only asked that we give the inspectors a few more weeks.
All you idiots can do is make fun of France and reject any source that isn't the emminent and highly respectable Hindustaan Times. Oh, and NTs swell imitation of a black guy, that was artful. Brilliant. You've all really raised the bar for standards of conversation in the ol' US of A.
BTW, there is NO connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The only person in the world who's still holding a flame for that piece of misinformation is the VP Haliburton. The CIA has long since dismissed it and even Bush was working it out of his speeches back in January. The original source, Czech Information service, said in 2002 that the whole story was bogus. You want sources, do one of your famous Google key word searches. This is common fucking knowledge at this point.
So, given that there was no 9-11 connection, given that there were no WMDs ( in spite of Jimnyc's fabulous source at freakin Hindustaan that says nothing more than what the Kuwaiti's say they've got.), given that there are many countries with definable connections to Al Qaeda (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, to start with) there is only one explanation for the war on Iraq. And it wasn't some humanitarian need to run around deposing dictators: there are dictators enough to choose from. Haliburton got one of the first contracts offered, and they got it without being required to bid. That's where the war starts to make sense.
Here is what Bush has managed in a few short months. By not waiting the few weeks that France, Germany, Russia, and even England was asking of us, we alienated the entire international community, we broke the agreements, and we left the UN a smouldering heap of uselessness. (And you jokers are wondering why the whole world isn't rushing to donate money to the cause...) In the process of begging for friends to support us, we caused an irreparable rift in the EU between the countries that aren't dependent on US dollars for their well being, and the poor eastern block countries that would like to be. We have done irreparable harm to our reputation, to our alliances, and by weakening the UN to the point of hilarity, we have irrevocably destabalized the world. Some of that, of course, is conjecture, we'll just have to wait and see.
Why did we do those things? So we could rush into Iraq, destroy the infrastructure and beaurocracy; create new generations of orphans to be seduced into terrorism; exchange a predictable and secular dictator with a destabalized and deeply divided religious population; demonstrate to the world as quickly and efficiently as possible that EVERY JUSTIFICATION FOR STARTING THE WAR WAS PATENTLY FALSE, IF NOT AN OUTRIGHT LIE. No connection to Al Qaeda, no WMDS and therefore no plea of self defence. And they only asked that we give the inspectors a few more weeks.
All you idiots can do is make fun of France and reject any source that isn't the emminent and highly respectable Hindustaan Times. Oh, and NTs swell imitation of a black guy, that was artful. Brilliant. You've all really raised the bar for standards of conversation in the ol' US of A.
Originally posted by Bry
BTW, there is NO connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
"Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. According to administration officials familiar with his questioning, he has subsequently admitted additional contacts, including a meeting in late 1997."
Please point me to where the CIA or ANYONE has proven these false.
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
So, given that there was no 9-11 connection, given that there were no WMDs ( in spite of Jimnyc's fabulous source at freakin Hindustaan that says nothing more than what the Kuwaiti's say they've got.)
I guess you neglected to read the link from WorldNetDaily in addition to the Hindustaan link.
There is plenty of proof listed in the link above outlining ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I've done the legwork to find it, now why don't YOU do some to prove they are wrong. After all, it's "common fucking knowledge", it should be very easy for you to prove everything on that page wrong.
Open mouth, insert foot, Asshole!
Originally posted by jimnyc
"Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. According to administration officials familiar with his questioning, he has subsequently admitted additional contacts, including a meeting in late 1997."
Please point me to where the CIA or ANYONE has proven these false.
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
LOL
You have a real knack for criticising the sources of others, then you come up with the weekly fucking standard. Why not go directly to the George Bush home page: http://www.president-bush.com/alqaeda-iraqlink.html. Same bull shit there. Congratulations.
I guess you neglected to read the link from WorldNetDaily in addition to the Hindustaan link.
I didn't neglect it, I just thought the Hindustaan was so funny, i couldn't help it.
There is plenty of proof listed in the link above outlining ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I've done the legwork to find it, now why don't YOU do some to prove they are wrong. After all, it's "common fucking knowledge", it should be very easy for you to prove everything on that page wrong.
whoa! some legwork! an article in the weekly standard! congratulations. If you call that leg work, you must get really worn out walking a whole half mile a day with your son on top of washing dishes almost every day.
Here are a couple, and a little fresher.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030919/pl_usatoday/11857429
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...mideast_afp/us_attacks_iraq_bush_030918015457
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030917/pl_afp/us_iraq_whouse_030917171452
You are my bitch.
Hey, you speak pretty decent english for a Spaniard. Not bad.
Did you like my imitation? Did it sound authentic? Thanks!
As Jim pointed out, and evidently you read other threads here, why are you trying to discredit the Al Qaeda / Iraq connection? There are facts galore, do you sit there in Spain with your hands over your eyes shouting 'No! I can't accept it!!' At least be honest and see the 'sources' for the discredited Czech incident. What stories you're going to find discrediting it will not be legitimate news services.
The Czechs stand by their report. I just know you'll hate me, but I just have to see your proof.
They are widely known as the best in the world to extinguish oil well fires. If they're the best, why shouldn't they get the work? Would you rather that the Spanish company, 'Mama Mia's Flame Out' got the work, instead? Even if they were considered much less competent to perform the work? I would think as a liberal, you'd be overjoyed that they were extinguished as fast as they were. Environment didn't get polluted as much.
Really? You must have missed the part where France announced that they would veto any resolution to use force BEFORE IT WAS EVEN SUBMITTED!
A few more weeks? That's pretty funny. Yep, after over a decade, a couple more weeks would have done wonders. Especially when France said flat out 'No at all costs!' I'd research that a little, if I were you.
Wow, you must shop for your Crystal Balls where Spilly does! You seem to know exactly what's going to happen, with utter disregard for historical precedence!
As for your 'LIES' statement... are you saying that there weren't Bio and Chem weapons in Iraq, in clear breach of UN resolutions?
BTW - I would give a year worth of pay to watch you and Spilly stand in front of the millions of people that suffered & watched their families suffer under Saddam and spout your bullshit that the war wasn't justified.
Then again, maybe not... that would be one helluva bloody 5 minutes. Dismemberment makes me queasy.
Did you like my imitation? Did it sound authentic? Thanks!
As Jim pointed out, and evidently you read other threads here, why are you trying to discredit the Al Qaeda / Iraq connection? There are facts galore, do you sit there in Spain with your hands over your eyes shouting 'No! I can't accept it!!' At least be honest and see the 'sources' for the discredited Czech incident. What stories you're going to find discrediting it will not be legitimate news services.
The Czechs stand by their report. I just know you'll hate me, but I just have to see your proof.
Haliburton got one of the first contracts offered, and they got it without being required to bid. That's where the war starts to make sense.
They are widely known as the best in the world to extinguish oil well fires. If they're the best, why shouldn't they get the work? Would you rather that the Spanish company, 'Mama Mia's Flame Out' got the work, instead? Even if they were considered much less competent to perform the work? I would think as a liberal, you'd be overjoyed that they were extinguished as fast as they were. Environment didn't get polluted as much.
Here is what Bush has managed in a few short months. By not waiting the few weeks that France, Germany, Russia, and even England was asking of us, we alienated the entire international community, we broke the agreements, and we left the UN a smouldering heap of uselessness.
Really? You must have missed the part where France announced that they would veto any resolution to use force BEFORE IT WAS EVEN SUBMITTED!
A few more weeks? That's pretty funny. Yep, after over a decade, a couple more weeks would have done wonders. Especially when France said flat out 'No at all costs!' I'd research that a little, if I were you.
Why did we do those things? So we could rush into Iraq, destroy the infrastructure and beaurocracy; create new generations of orphans to be seduced into terrorism; exchange a predictable and secular dictator with a destabalized and deeply divided religious population; demonstrate to the world as quickly and efficiently as possible that EVERY JUSTIFICATION FOR STARTING THE WAR WAS PATENTLY FALSE, IF NOT AN OUTRIGHT LIE. No connection to Al Qaeda, no WMDS and therefore no plea of self defence. And they only asked that we give the inspectors a few more weeks.
Wow, you must shop for your Crystal Balls where Spilly does! You seem to know exactly what's going to happen, with utter disregard for historical precedence!
As for your 'LIES' statement... are you saying that there weren't Bio and Chem weapons in Iraq, in clear breach of UN resolutions?
BTW - I would give a year worth of pay to watch you and Spilly stand in front of the millions of people that suffered & watched their families suffer under Saddam and spout your bullshit that the war wasn't justified.
Then again, maybe not... that would be one helluva bloody 5 minutes. Dismemberment makes me queasy.
Originally posted by NightTrain
Hey, you speak pretty decent english for a Spaniard. Not bad.
Thanks, but I'm not a Spaniard.
Did you like my imitation? Did it sound authentic? Thanks!
No, it was fuckin' retarded.
As Jim pointed out, and evidently you read other threads here, why are you trying to discredit the Al Qaeda / Iraq connection? There are facts galore, do you sit there in Spain with your hands over your eyes shouting 'No! I can't accept it!!' At least be honest and see the 'sources' for the discredited Czech incident. What stories you're going to find discrediting it will not be legitimate news services.
The czechs don't stand by shit. My sources are AP. But as with all of your rebuttals, you're okay with simply announcing that other people's source's are invalid and then burrying your head in the sand.
The Czechs stand by their report. I just know you'll hate me, but I just have to see your proof.
They are widely known as the best in the world to extinguish oil well fires. If they're the best, why shouldn't they get the work? Would you rather that the Spanish company, 'Mama Mia's Flame Out' got the work, instead? Even if they were considered much less competent to perform the work? I would think as a liberal, you'd be overjoyed that they were extinguished as fast as they were. Environment didn't get polluted as much.
Yes, contracts should be opened to bidding on the international market. That would be the only way for Chimp to save face, but apparently saving face is high on his priorities.
Really? You must have missed the part where France announced that they would veto any resolution to use force BEFORE IT WAS EVEN SUBMITTED!
A few more weeks? That's pretty funny. Yep, after over a decade, a couple more weeks would have done wonders. Especially when France said flat out 'No at all costs!' I'd research that a little, if I were you.
France resorted to no at no costs in the moment when the US was desperately trying to push things forward: delays in the invasion would have cost the US that many more billions. The invasion force was in place, the trigger had to be pulled. Iraq was bluffing all along. As has became clear, the only insurance against a US invasion is convincing them you have nukes. Look at your own commentaries regarding NK.
Wow, you must shop for your Crystal Balls where Spilly does! You seem to know exactly what's going to happen, with utter disregard for historical precedence!
As for your 'LIES' statement... are you saying that there weren't Bio and Chem weapons in Iraq, in clear breach of UN resolutions?
There were not significant amounts of anything. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. The war was a comical farce from beginning to end.
BTW - I would give a year worth of pay to watch you and Spilly stand in front of the millions of people that suffered & watched their families suffer under Saddam and spout your bullshit that the war wasn't justified.
Then again, maybe not... that would be one helluva bloody 5 minutes. Dismemberment makes me queasy.
If I were you, I wouldn't be so confident in the reception the Iraqis have given their new found status without electricity, water, phones, jobs, economy, food. And that hotbed is NOT going to support a democracy, not now, not ever.
I'm going to bed. Any further replies will have to wait until tomorrow.
Uh, you and Spilly have the same problem distinguishing between the Iraq / Al Qaeda connection and Iraq / 911.
I don't think anyone on this board has said that Saddam was responsible for, or in any way, shape or form had a part in 9/11.
There WERE links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There were NOT links between Iraq and 9/11.
Did that clear that up for ya, Zippy?
Now. Show us your sources (AP, no less!) that say there were no Iraq / Al Qaeda connections.
I guess that's why you're not the most powerful man in the world, as Dubya is. He knew he wanted the best, and got them. When you people in Spain buy brakes for your car, do you search for the cheapest set you can find?
So, France was right to say no, even before the proposal was submitted for debate & revision, right? Bullshit.
We had to get things moving because we had troops in the area? Bullshit.
Iraq was bluffing? Really? I'm sure you have loads of documents that back up your assinine statement, no? Let's see it, Pedro.
Really? Tell us why they won't ever have a democracy. Because they're stooopid, right?
I don't think anyone on this board has said that Saddam was responsible for, or in any way, shape or form had a part in 9/11.
There WERE links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There were NOT links between Iraq and 9/11.
Did that clear that up for ya, Zippy?
Now. Show us your sources (AP, no less!) that say there were no Iraq / Al Qaeda connections.
Yes, contracts should be opened to bidding on the international market. That would be the only way for Chimp to save face, but apparently saving face is high on his priorities.
I guess that's why you're not the most powerful man in the world, as Dubya is. He knew he wanted the best, and got them. When you people in Spain buy brakes for your car, do you search for the cheapest set you can find?
France resorted to no at no costs in the moment when the US was desperately trying to push things forward: delays in the invasion would have cost the US that many more billions. The invasion force was in place, the trigger had to be pulled. Iraq was bluffing all along. As has became clear, the only insurance against a US invasion is convincing them you have nukes. Look at your own commentaries regarding NK.
So, France was right to say no, even before the proposal was submitted for debate & revision, right? Bullshit.
We had to get things moving because we had troops in the area? Bullshit.
Iraq was bluffing? Really? I'm sure you have loads of documents that back up your assinine statement, no? Let's see it, Pedro.
If I were you, I wouldn't be so confident in the reception the Iraqis have given their new found status without electricity, water, phones, jobs, economy, food. And that hotbed is NOT going to support a democracy, not now, not ever.
Really? Tell us why they won't ever have a democracy. Because they're stooopid, right?
MtnBiker
Senior Member
Wow, to think a nation of oppressed people would not or could not embrace freedom and their own power over that freedom because of obstacles, shows little faith in our fellow man.Originally posted by Bry
If I were you, I wouldn't be so confident in the reception the Iraqis have given their new found status without electricity, water, phones, jobs, economy, food. And that hotbed is NOT going to support a democracy, not now, not ever.
I'm going to bed. Any further replies will have to wait until tomorrow.
Originally posted by Bry
Originally posted by jimnyc
"Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. According to administration officials familiar with his questioning, he has subsequently admitted additional contacts, including a meeting in late 1997."
Please point me to where the CIA or ANYONE has proven these false.
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
LOL
You have a real knack for criticising the sources of others, then you come up with the weekly fucking standard. Why not go directly to the George Bush home page: http://www.president-bush.com/alqaeda-iraqlink.html. Same bull shit there. Congratulations.
I guess you neglected to read the link from WorldNetDaily in addition to the Hindustaan link.
I didn't neglect it, I just thought the Hindustaan was so funny, i couldn't help it.
There is plenty of proof listed in the link above outlining ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I've done the legwork to find it, now why don't YOU do some to prove they are wrong. After all, it's "common fucking knowledge", it should be very easy for you to prove everything on that page wrong.
whoa! some legwork! an article in the weekly standard! congratulations. If you call that leg work, you must get really worn out walking a whole half mile a day with your son on top of washing dishes almost every day.
Here are a couple, and a little fresher.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030919/pl_usatoday/11857429
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...mideast_afp/us_attacks_iraq_bush_030918015457
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030917/pl_afp/us_iraq_whouse_030917171452
You are my bitch.
I'm YOU'RE bitch? LOL
Those links are completely useless as they don't cover Iraq - Al Qaeda links at all. I foresee nighttime adult education courses on the horizon for you! A bit of advice: Comprehension 101.
Try ANY of the major media organizations as they all have built in search engines for their sites. Just type in "Iraq Al Qaeda ties" and you'll find all the information you need to look like the drooling mongoloid you are. Here are a couple from "reputable" new sources for you to choke on:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/alqaeda_iraq020927.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/
Now grab your ears and pull - you may just be able to yank your head out of your ass.
Dear Jim,
Your sources discredit themselves. Here's what the first says:
"But prison interviews are always suspect because there's no way to know if they're exaggerating or simply lying in order to curry favor from their captors, and the information is difficult to confirm. All three men appeared to be calm and sincere, and their responses were very detailed, often including names and specific dates. Talking to me, they said, was a step towards righting the wrongs of their past."
and the second:
"information [Condi] said has been gleaned from captives in the ongoing war on terrorism."
funny thing about information from captives, is it's totally unreliable. Why? because captives get coerced through torcher or seeking benefits from their captors. (At this point, I'm imagining that you think that suspending habeas corpus for the prosoners in Guantanamo is a good idea. I hope that's not the case. But it is clear that any "information" gleaned from those camps is worthless.)
Hmm. very convincing Jim. In fact, I followed your directions, and apart from the assertions of the WeeklyStandard and a couple right-wing think tanks (how's THAT for an oxymoron) there are no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq that predate the war. Here's what one articel discussing war ties between the two had to say:
"I see no information that links al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein's people before the war, and the Americans never provided any hard evidence, so it is an alliance that postdates the war, not predates it," he said.
Professor Barry Buzan, international security specialist at the London School of Economics, agreed.
"I find it quite plausible that with the Americans having made such a big target of themselves in Iraq, an alliance should come into existence now purely on opportunistic grounds," he said.
"But I see no evidence of such a connection before the war and those people who made political mileage out of there being one have shut up."
That first paragraph is conclusive. The Admin. didn't clarify the case before the war, any evidence they offer now can only contribute to connecting AlQaeda and Iraq AFTER the war. But, same as your articles, it's just heresay, "expert" analysis, and no proof. In this situation, however, the burden of proof is on the administration (and yourself by proxy). They say there are connections, they need to show them. And it better not consist of prisoner testimonies. Frankly, I'm not even interested in ANY evidence found after the war. I want to know exactly what they had to offer before the war, 'cause whatever it was, it didn't even convince our allies.
Your going to have to do much better than this to justify this administration's actions.
Bry
PS who awards the "freedom of Speech award" ? this whole Board is a freakin' joke. Don't expect many more posts from me here. There are more convincing Cons on Yahoo!
Your sources discredit themselves. Here's what the first says:
"But prison interviews are always suspect because there's no way to know if they're exaggerating or simply lying in order to curry favor from their captors, and the information is difficult to confirm. All three men appeared to be calm and sincere, and their responses were very detailed, often including names and specific dates. Talking to me, they said, was a step towards righting the wrongs of their past."
and the second:
"information [Condi] said has been gleaned from captives in the ongoing war on terrorism."
funny thing about information from captives, is it's totally unreliable. Why? because captives get coerced through torcher or seeking benefits from their captors. (At this point, I'm imagining that you think that suspending habeas corpus for the prosoners in Guantanamo is a good idea. I hope that's not the case. But it is clear that any "information" gleaned from those camps is worthless.)
Hmm. very convincing Jim. In fact, I followed your directions, and apart from the assertions of the WeeklyStandard and a couple right-wing think tanks (how's THAT for an oxymoron) there are no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq that predate the war. Here's what one articel discussing war ties between the two had to say:
"I see no information that links al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein's people before the war, and the Americans never provided any hard evidence, so it is an alliance that postdates the war, not predates it," he said.
Professor Barry Buzan, international security specialist at the London School of Economics, agreed.
"I find it quite plausible that with the Americans having made such a big target of themselves in Iraq, an alliance should come into existence now purely on opportunistic grounds," he said.
"But I see no evidence of such a connection before the war and those people who made political mileage out of there being one have shut up."
That first paragraph is conclusive. The Admin. didn't clarify the case before the war, any evidence they offer now can only contribute to connecting AlQaeda and Iraq AFTER the war. But, same as your articles, it's just heresay, "expert" analysis, and no proof. In this situation, however, the burden of proof is on the administration (and yourself by proxy). They say there are connections, they need to show them. And it better not consist of prisoner testimonies. Frankly, I'm not even interested in ANY evidence found after the war. I want to know exactly what they had to offer before the war, 'cause whatever it was, it didn't even convince our allies.
Your going to have to do much better than this to justify this administration's actions.
Bry
PS who awards the "freedom of Speech award" ? this whole Board is a freakin' joke. Don't expect many more posts from me here. There are more convincing Cons on Yahoo!
Originally posted by MtnBiker
Wow, to think a nation of oppressed people would not or could not embrace freedom and their own power over that freedom because of obstacles, shows little faith in our fellow man.
you, sir, are a troll. I love it when Righties get all teary-eyed about their faith in fellow man. Especially in this instance. You get similar riot scenes in Chicago or Detroit when a sports team wins a championship. NYC went berserk because of 12 freakin' hours without electricity. But your faith in humanity is such that you are convinced the Iraqis wouldn't trade their new found "freedom" for a job and some bread under any regime.
In this case, Janis Joplin had it right. Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to loose.
MtnBiker
Senior Member
Well the U.S. became a nation. There were many obstacles that had to be overcome. I'm glad you weren't around then to add to them.
J
janeeng
Guest
Hey, who are you calling TROLL? that's your name!!! 
now back in the cave for you!
now back in the cave for you!dear NT,
The burden of proof lies with the administration, not only to show what they say they have, but to make it presentable and predating the war. Prisoner testimonies from prison camps where due process doesn't exist do not count. How can I prove wrong evidence they haven't even presented? This is just another example of you demanding much and providing little.
Chimp is a chimp. VP Haliburton is the most powerful man in the world, and I'm doing everything I can to get his ass sent to Leavenworth. These contracts are a CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and Haliburton is not the only contractor in the world that can but out a fire. Haliburton should have been excluded from bidding.
The proposal in the end wasn't submitted. Bush took it off the table because it was clear that there was too much resistance to the IMMEDIATE use of force.
hmm. would you like to elaborate on "bullshit"? why were we in such a hurry NT? Was it the "immediate" threat? Don't ask me to present you with all the occaiones in which the CIA, or the admin., or the ex. inspectors have said: No WMDs in Iraq.
okay.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031001/pl_afp/us_iraq_weapons_031001153119
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031001/pl_afp/us_iraq_weapons_031001153119
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20031003/ts_washpost/a35638_2003oct2
The evidence isn't conclusive, on either side, but there is an investigation into the PROBABILITY. And there is precedence, in NK. Once again, I must say the burdon of proof does not lie with us. Proving the non-existence of something is impossible. God has yet to be refuted, along with extraterrestrials, but I for one am holding out for a little more positive evidence. It is the Admin. that claims it has just mountains of reliable information, but they haven't shown any of it to anyone. Rather, they seem to be going out of their way to downplay it. "We've got tons, but you don't want to see that...". "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains..."
Idiots.
I'm not going to continue this dialogue with you NT. You have already demonstrated that your only viable tactic is to demand everything and give nothing, but the onus of proof is on you and yours.
Uh, you and Spilly have the same problem distinguishing between the Iraq / Al Qaeda connection and Iraq / 911.
The burden of proof lies with the administration, not only to show what they say they have, but to make it presentable and predating the war. Prisoner testimonies from prison camps where due process doesn't exist do not count. How can I prove wrong evidence they haven't even presented? This is just another example of you demanding much and providing little.
I guess that's why you're not the most powerful man in the world, as Dubya is. He knew he wanted the best, and got them. When you people in Spain buy brakes for your car, do you search for the cheapest set you can find?
Chimp is a chimp. VP Haliburton is the most powerful man in the world, and I'm doing everything I can to get his ass sent to Leavenworth. These contracts are a CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and Haliburton is not the only contractor in the world that can but out a fire. Haliburton should have been excluded from bidding.
So, France was right to say no, even before the proposal was submitted for debate & revision, right? Bullshit.
The proposal in the end wasn't submitted. Bush took it off the table because it was clear that there was too much resistance to the IMMEDIATE use of force.
We had to get things moving because we had troops in the area? Bullshit.
hmm. would you like to elaborate on "bullshit"? why were we in such a hurry NT? Was it the "immediate" threat? Don't ask me to present you with all the occaiones in which the CIA, or the admin., or the ex. inspectors have said: No WMDs in Iraq.
Iraq was bluffing? Really? I'm sure you have loads of documents that back up your assinine statement, no? Let's see it, Pedro.
okay.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031001/pl_afp/us_iraq_weapons_031001153119
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031001/pl_afp/us_iraq_weapons_031001153119
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20031003/ts_washpost/a35638_2003oct2
The evidence isn't conclusive, on either side, but there is an investigation into the PROBABILITY. And there is precedence, in NK. Once again, I must say the burdon of proof does not lie with us. Proving the non-existence of something is impossible. God has yet to be refuted, along with extraterrestrials, but I for one am holding out for a little more positive evidence. It is the Admin. that claims it has just mountains of reliable information, but they haven't shown any of it to anyone. Rather, they seem to be going out of their way to downplay it. "We've got tons, but you don't want to see that...". "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains..."
Idiots.
I'm not going to continue this dialogue with you NT. You have already demonstrated that your only viable tactic is to demand everything and give nothing, but the onus of proof is on you and yours.
J
janeeng
Guest
PS who awards the "freedom of Speech award" ? this whole Board is a freakin' joke. Don't expect many more posts from me here. There are more convincing Cons on Yahoo!
Well well TROLL! wasn't thou who claimed last night that you weren't planning on posting anymore on this freakin board?? and looky looky, bright and early at 6:30 a.m. it has returned. You just couldn't resist, could you!!! WELCOME BACK JERKY!
Well well TROLL! wasn't thou who claimed last night that you weren't planning on posting anymore on this freakin board?? and looky looky, bright and early at 6:30 a.m. it has returned. You just couldn't resist, could you!!! WELCOME BACK JERKY!
Originally posted by MtnBiker
Well the U.S. became a nation. There were many obstacles that had to be overcome. I'm glad you weren't around then to add to them.
The case of the US Revolution is not comparable to that of Iraq, except that in both cases, the real motive was piracy and profiteering.
Say something smart or be relegated to the list of people I will not dialogue with.
5stringJeff
Senior Member
Originally posted by Bry
The case of the US Revolution is not comparable to that of Iraq, except that in both cases, the real motive was piracy and profiteering.
Say something smart or be relegated to the list of people I will not dialogue with.
So who exactly was profiteering in colonial America that convinved 13 separate colonies to give the finger to Great Britian? Which pirates convinced the colonists to fight the most well-trained army in the world?
to gop jeff
"State navies and somewhat irregular national navy had been of less consequence than Revolutionary privateers. Esek Hopkins had led a raid in the Bahamas in 1776, John Barry won a name as a gallant commander, and John Paul Jones was one of the most celebrated naval commanders in all US naval history, but their exploits were single incidents. It was the French fleet..."
"The time was one of indecision, and the division of the people was symbolized by the split between Benjamin Franklin and his Loyalist son, William Franklin. The Loyalists were numerous and included small farmers as well as large landowners, royal officeholders, and members of the professions; they were to be found in varying strength in every colony. A large part of the population was more or less neutral, swaying to this side or that or else remaining inert in the struggle, which was to some extent a civil war. So it was to remain to the end. Civil government and administration had fallen apart and had to be patched together locally. In some places the result was bloody strife, as in the partisan raids in the Carolinas and Georgia and the Mohawk valley masacre in New York..."
Look dude, if you want somebody to read to you, call your mother. Otherwise, take responsibility for your own education. In the US, that frequently means reading between the lines. as so much of our history has been rewritten. Pay particular attention to who benefitted from the Revolution, monetarily and in influence. It's clear that it wasn't a popular war, and that "our forefathers" though pretending to speak the will of the people, did so without the mandate of the people. Look up that last bit about the Mohawk Valley masacre in New York. Don't just accept the party line, look for the deeper meanings. The "raids" on the Bahamas were pirate's games. The "people" were never convinced that the war was a good idea, though there were always enough in favor to wage it. And the rebels didn't fight the best trained army in the world. The French did. The American's rarely took part in any manuveur that was anything more than guerilla harassment.
Bry
"State navies and somewhat irregular national navy had been of less consequence than Revolutionary privateers. Esek Hopkins had led a raid in the Bahamas in 1776, John Barry won a name as a gallant commander, and John Paul Jones was one of the most celebrated naval commanders in all US naval history, but their exploits were single incidents. It was the French fleet..."
"The time was one of indecision, and the division of the people was symbolized by the split between Benjamin Franklin and his Loyalist son, William Franklin. The Loyalists were numerous and included small farmers as well as large landowners, royal officeholders, and members of the professions; they were to be found in varying strength in every colony. A large part of the population was more or less neutral, swaying to this side or that or else remaining inert in the struggle, which was to some extent a civil war. So it was to remain to the end. Civil government and administration had fallen apart and had to be patched together locally. In some places the result was bloody strife, as in the partisan raids in the Carolinas and Georgia and the Mohawk valley masacre in New York..."
Look dude, if you want somebody to read to you, call your mother. Otherwise, take responsibility for your own education. In the US, that frequently means reading between the lines. as so much of our history has been rewritten. Pay particular attention to who benefitted from the Revolution, monetarily and in influence. It's clear that it wasn't a popular war, and that "our forefathers" though pretending to speak the will of the people, did so without the mandate of the people. Look up that last bit about the Mohawk Valley masacre in New York. Don't just accept the party line, look for the deeper meanings. The "raids" on the Bahamas were pirate's games. The "people" were never convinced that the war was a good idea, though there were always enough in favor to wage it. And the rebels didn't fight the best trained army in the world. The French did. The American's rarely took part in any manuveur that was anything more than guerilla harassment.
Bry
Originally posted by gop_jeff
So who exactly was profiteering in colonial America that convinved 13 separate colonies to give the finger to Great Britian? Which pirates convinced the colonists to fight the most well-trained army in the world?
J
janeeng
Guest
Hey limpdick, who are you to talk about education? hooked on phonics has a spelling program you can use, shoud you want to blow shit about education - and coming on here bashing kids and parents, shows your ignorance - I am sure your probably one who is still sucking from Mommies nipple! now, go back in your hole TROLL!!!!!!
Similar threads
- Replies
- 382
- Views
- 58K
- Replies
- 23
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 64
- Views
- 386
- Replies
- 214
- Views
- 672
- Replies
- 40
- Views
- 161
- Replies
- 356
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8110
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-