red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
and Al Gore stood on the Senate floor praising Bush 41 for not going into Iraq
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.
"Support the Troops"
- Thread starter Gurdari
- Start date
and Al Gore stood on the Senate floor praising Bush 41 for not going into Iraq
Creek_George
Member
To jump in this debate..this topic would take a dam week of research...to who one would take sides with...(smile)...Speaking for myself of course.
Totaly awesome the feed back....
It's been awhile...but I'm warming up.
Soon as I'm done making fire out of my tinker toys...gona take each..and everyone of you on...How ever ya wana do it....Gota make sure I pass the Lincoln Log test of course..
(smile)...The top five who hate eachother here...Could make a Survivor Show.....
Creek
Totaly awesome the feed back....
It's been awhile...but I'm warming up.
Soon as I'm done making fire out of my tinker toys...gona take each..and everyone of you on...How ever ya wana do it....Gota make sure I pass the Lincoln Log test of course..
(smile)...The top five who hate eachother here...Could make a Survivor Show.....
Creek
Gunny
Gold Member
Y'know it just occured to me that I am the only guy in the US of A that really couldn't care less if SH was a terrorist, had WMD, or enjoyed drinking the blood of virgins.
In 1991 we should have removed him then. This was simply unfinished business.
Actually, that would be two of us that agree with your first. He was a piece of trash who deserved to die. I've never said otherwise.
As far as unfinished business, Bush had to agree to not pursue Saddam beyond the Iraqi border (which as you know we defined rather liberally in our pursuit) in order to have unrestricted use of Arab airspace and our air force base in SA.
It would have been finished business had Saddam complied with the terms of the ceasefire and the UN Resolutions.
But even then, whoever President Bush's press correspondent was argued that there was "no Abraham Lincoln waiting in the wings to fill Saddam's shoes."
Ninja
Senior Member
What exactly does this mean? Anyone?
It means "fuck the politics of the situation - God bless those men and women."
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
One can always count on the liberal media to show their "support" pf the troops
ABC and CBS Use 4th Anniversary of Hussein Statue Toppling to Relay Iraqi's Regret
Posted by Brent Baker on April 9, 2007 - 21:39.
Both ABC and CBS on Monday night used the fourth anniversary of the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad as a chance to highlight the regret of a man who used a sledgehammer to destroy the pedestal. After starting her story with anti-U.S. protests inspired by Moqtada al-Sadr, ABC's Hilary Brown, presumably referring to ABC's March poll of Iraqis, asserted that the appalling bloodshed has turned most Iraqis -- 78 percent -- against the occupation. Thirty-six percent now say that life is worse than it ever was under the dictator. She proceeded to focus on how one Iraqi in particular remembers, and now regrets, that iconic moment four years ago when the huge statute of Saddam Hussein was toppled. Brown relayed how Khadim Yabani says 'but now I just feel regret because nothing has improved.' That's why he says it would have been better that Saddam had never been overthrown. On the CBS Evening News, Martin Seemungal, before he highlighted Yabani, at least acknowledged that in some places, like in the southern city of Basra, people were out celebrating the anniversary.
Meanwhile, ABC's World News led with Diane Sawyer in Afghanistan where she suggested misplaced priorities as she pointed out that on this anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, the leaders here note the U.S. has spent some four-times the amount in Iraq, per person, as in the place the fight against terrorism started. Sawyer reminded Afghan President Hamid Karzai of how you have said if the U.S. had given Afghanistan what it spent in Iraq, it would be like 'heaven' here. Did the U.S. give too little? In your view?" Karzai refused to take Sawyer's bait, responding: We are grateful to the American people, to the taxpayers, for having helped Afghanistan, in a big way.
Sawyer's exchange with Karzai as played on the April 9 World News:
Diane Sawyer: On this anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, the leaders here note the U.S. has spent some four-times the amount in Iraq, per person, as in the place the fight against terrorism started.
Sawyer to Hamid Karzai: You have said if the U.S. had given Afghanistan what it spent in Iraq, it would be like 'heaven' here. Did the U.S. give too little? In your view?
Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan: The world as a whole -- other crises [probably meant 'countries'] in the world pay us little. We are grateful to the American people, to the taxpayers, for having helped Afghanistan, in a big way.
Sawyer: Do you have enough American and NATO troops?
Karzai: No. We don't have enough manpower or enough equipment or air power.
Last September on Meet the Press Karzai had asserted: Three hundred billion dollars? You give that to Afghanistan and we will be heaven in less than a year.
CBS Evening News. After starting with the anti-U.S. protests, and noting how there was celebration in Basra, Martin Seemungal concluded his piece with the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue:
Remember the loan Iraqi battering it with a sledge hammer?
Khadim Yabani, through translator: It was my wish in life to destroy the statue.
Seemungal: That was Khadim Yabani. He remembers that moment as if it were yesterday.
Yabani, through translator: We were so happy we had got rid of the tyrant.
Seemungal: Now he spends most of his time in his shop working on old motorcycles. But business is slow. There's more demand for heavily armored vehicles in Baghdad than for Harley-Davidsons.
Yabani, through translator: We are going into the fifth year and we are suffering from problems more than we used to suffer in Saddam's time.
Seemungal concluded: The memory of that triumphant moment is fading fast. Martin Seemungal for CBS News, Baghdad.
ABC's World News. Charles Gibson set up the anniversary story, which followed Sawyer's lead report from Afghanistan:
Next, to Iraq. This is a major anniversary there. It was four years ago today that Saddam Hussein's statue came down in Baghdad's Fardus Square. There were many in the streets that day. There were many in the streets today. But for a different reason. ABC's Hilary Brown is in Baghdad."
Hilary Brown: "Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the holy city of Najaf in a sea of Iraqi flags to demand an immediate end to the U.S. occupation. A cleric on stage shouted, 'Get out, get out, occupier!' as the mainly Shiite crowd roared in assent. The protest was ordered by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr, believed by U.S. officials to be in Iran. But in a statement, he called on Iraqis to stop fighting each other and unite against American troops. Authorities imposed a ban on cars, trucks, even motorcycles, in both Baghdad and Najaf. The fear was that the rally could become a target for bombers. The 24-hour traffic ban before and after the demonstration seems to have worked.
There was little violence today. And that is rare in a country where ordinary people are being shot or blown up at the rate of 100 a day. The appalling bloodshed has turned most Iraqis -- 78 percent -- against the occupation. Thirty-six percent now say that life is worse than it ever was under the dictator.
One Iraqi in particular remembers, and now regrets, that iconic moment four years ago when the huge statute of Saddam Hussein was toppled in Fardus Square. Khadim Yabani is a former weightlifter whose great strength helped bring the statue down. 'At the time, I was proud,' he says, 'but now I just feel regret because nothing has improved.' That's why he says it would have been better that Saddam had never been overthrown. The U.S. military said today that if Saddam were still in power, a protest like this one would not have been possible. Hilary Brown, ABC News, Baghdad."
Just last week, ABC's World News uniquely featured a report from Terry McCarthy on improvements in security and living conditions for the people of Iraq. Brad Wilmouth's NewsBusters item on that April 3 story.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11934
ABC and CBS Use 4th Anniversary of Hussein Statue Toppling to Relay Iraqi's Regret
Posted by Brent Baker on April 9, 2007 - 21:39.
Both ABC and CBS on Monday night used the fourth anniversary of the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad as a chance to highlight the regret of a man who used a sledgehammer to destroy the pedestal. After starting her story with anti-U.S. protests inspired by Moqtada al-Sadr, ABC's Hilary Brown, presumably referring to ABC's March poll of Iraqis, asserted that the appalling bloodshed has turned most Iraqis -- 78 percent -- against the occupation. Thirty-six percent now say that life is worse than it ever was under the dictator. She proceeded to focus on how one Iraqi in particular remembers, and now regrets, that iconic moment four years ago when the huge statute of Saddam Hussein was toppled. Brown relayed how Khadim Yabani says 'but now I just feel regret because nothing has improved.' That's why he says it would have been better that Saddam had never been overthrown. On the CBS Evening News, Martin Seemungal, before he highlighted Yabani, at least acknowledged that in some places, like in the southern city of Basra, people were out celebrating the anniversary.
Meanwhile, ABC's World News led with Diane Sawyer in Afghanistan where she suggested misplaced priorities as she pointed out that on this anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, the leaders here note the U.S. has spent some four-times the amount in Iraq, per person, as in the place the fight against terrorism started. Sawyer reminded Afghan President Hamid Karzai of how you have said if the U.S. had given Afghanistan what it spent in Iraq, it would be like 'heaven' here. Did the U.S. give too little? In your view?" Karzai refused to take Sawyer's bait, responding: We are grateful to the American people, to the taxpayers, for having helped Afghanistan, in a big way.
Sawyer's exchange with Karzai as played on the April 9 World News:
Diane Sawyer: On this anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, the leaders here note the U.S. has spent some four-times the amount in Iraq, per person, as in the place the fight against terrorism started.
Sawyer to Hamid Karzai: You have said if the U.S. had given Afghanistan what it spent in Iraq, it would be like 'heaven' here. Did the U.S. give too little? In your view?
Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan: The world as a whole -- other crises [probably meant 'countries'] in the world pay us little. We are grateful to the American people, to the taxpayers, for having helped Afghanistan, in a big way.
Sawyer: Do you have enough American and NATO troops?
Karzai: No. We don't have enough manpower or enough equipment or air power.
Last September on Meet the Press Karzai had asserted: Three hundred billion dollars? You give that to Afghanistan and we will be heaven in less than a year.
CBS Evening News. After starting with the anti-U.S. protests, and noting how there was celebration in Basra, Martin Seemungal concluded his piece with the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue:
Remember the loan Iraqi battering it with a sledge hammer?
Khadim Yabani, through translator: It was my wish in life to destroy the statue.
Seemungal: That was Khadim Yabani. He remembers that moment as if it were yesterday.
Yabani, through translator: We were so happy we had got rid of the tyrant.
Seemungal: Now he spends most of his time in his shop working on old motorcycles. But business is slow. There's more demand for heavily armored vehicles in Baghdad than for Harley-Davidsons.
Yabani, through translator: We are going into the fifth year and we are suffering from problems more than we used to suffer in Saddam's time.
Seemungal concluded: The memory of that triumphant moment is fading fast. Martin Seemungal for CBS News, Baghdad.
ABC's World News. Charles Gibson set up the anniversary story, which followed Sawyer's lead report from Afghanistan:
Next, to Iraq. This is a major anniversary there. It was four years ago today that Saddam Hussein's statue came down in Baghdad's Fardus Square. There were many in the streets that day. There were many in the streets today. But for a different reason. ABC's Hilary Brown is in Baghdad."
Hilary Brown: "Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the holy city of Najaf in a sea of Iraqi flags to demand an immediate end to the U.S. occupation. A cleric on stage shouted, 'Get out, get out, occupier!' as the mainly Shiite crowd roared in assent. The protest was ordered by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr, believed by U.S. officials to be in Iran. But in a statement, he called on Iraqis to stop fighting each other and unite against American troops. Authorities imposed a ban on cars, trucks, even motorcycles, in both Baghdad and Najaf. The fear was that the rally could become a target for bombers. The 24-hour traffic ban before and after the demonstration seems to have worked.
There was little violence today. And that is rare in a country where ordinary people are being shot or blown up at the rate of 100 a day. The appalling bloodshed has turned most Iraqis -- 78 percent -- against the occupation. Thirty-six percent now say that life is worse than it ever was under the dictator.
One Iraqi in particular remembers, and now regrets, that iconic moment four years ago when the huge statute of Saddam Hussein was toppled in Fardus Square. Khadim Yabani is a former weightlifter whose great strength helped bring the statue down. 'At the time, I was proud,' he says, 'but now I just feel regret because nothing has improved.' That's why he says it would have been better that Saddam had never been overthrown. The U.S. military said today that if Saddam were still in power, a protest like this one would not have been possible. Hilary Brown, ABC News, Baghdad."
Just last week, ABC's World News uniquely featured a report from Terry McCarthy on improvements in security and living conditions for the people of Iraq. Brad Wilmouth's NewsBusters item on that April 3 story.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11934
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
There are a few Democrats who do get it
April 10, 2007
We Shouldn't Be Alone in Fighting Terrorists
By Ed Koch
I still believe there is no greater danger facing the world today than Islamic terrorism.
I also believe that -- based on the information then available and the advice to the president by the CIA and its then director, George Tenet -- our 2003 invasion and liberation of Iraq was justified.
Considering that even Saddam's own generals believed Saddam had WMD, it's easy to understand why the CIA came to an erroneous conclusion. However, if we had known then what we know now about the lack of WMD in Iraq -- we should not have invaded.
Notwithstanding our mistake, we are nevertheless facing in Iraq the heart of the fundamental enemy of Western civilization and moderate Muslim states -- Islamic terrorism. If the United States were supported by our allies with troops on the ground, which is the case in Afghanistan, we should stay in Iraq and endeavor to destroy the insurrectionists and terrorists and assist the Iraqi government to govern Iraq free from terrorism and jihadists.
Make no mistake. The terrorists and jihadists are seeking to turn Iraq into a radical Islamic state devoted to spreading terrorism, and providing sanctuary for those bent on destroying Western civilization. If they could, they would join with Iran to build what they hope would be an invincible army dominating first the Persian Gulf area starting at the Mediterranean Sea and encompassing all of central Asia. Their ultimate goal is to reestablish an Islamic Caliphate, stretching from Spain, across North Africa to the Middle East, central Asia, finally reaching Southeast Asia and Indonesia, an area that today has a population of 1 billion, 400 million Muslims, under one Islamic government and religious leader.
Not every Muslim is a terrorist, nor do all Muslims agree with this goal. But as journalist Abdel Rahman al-Rashed said, "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims."
If the United States, on its own, could defeat the terrorists and their goals by waging the battle now ongoing in Iraq, as President Bush believes we can, I would support that effort. But I, like most Americans, have concluded that we cannot do it alone. The casualties and cost are too great. I believe that unless we are joined by a significant number of our allies, regional and NATO, who would provide combat troops and share in the costs of war, we should leave Iraq.
In pursuit of such a decision, I urge the President to issue an ultimatum to our allies, both regional -- Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, the Gulf States -- and our 25 NATO allies, that unless a significant number reply affirmatively in 30 days to our ultimatum, we will begin immediately the process of withdrawal. At the same time, we should require the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to call a special session of the Iraqi legislature to vote on a resolution stating their request of the U.S. and others to remain in Iraq, specifying the rules of engagement and the goals being sought by the Iraqi government and its allies. If the Iraqi government fails to do so within 30 days, then irrespective of the actions taken by our allies, we should leave. Americans and most of the people of the Western world appear not to know that the United Nations Security Council has approved the U.S. waging war in support of the Iraqi government. Indeed, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, supposedly our ally, recently referred to the U.S. presence in Iraq as "an illegal foreign occupation."
I have no doubt the war will continue for generations yet to come should we leave under any of these circumstances and that we will be compelled to fight that war in our homeland as the jihadists follow us across the seas to attack us here, as they already did in first attacking the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 and again on September 11, 2001. There have been comparable attacks on Great Britain, Spain and other nations, including moderate Muslim countries, by the Islamic terrorists.
I believe there is a good chance that a significant number of our allies will respond affirmatively to our ultimatum, recognizing that they have more to lose than we do when the Iraqi refugees seeking relief from the ongoing civil war start to leave Iraq and stream across the borders of the neighboring states by the millions, bringing with them jihadists and terrorists and their suicide bombers. I recognize there is a greater likelihood that our allies will not respond affirmatively in significant numbers. That is particularly true with respect to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), founded in 1949. Our allies in NATO have lost their will to stand and defend their values, as Great Britain found recently when it sought support from the members of the European Union for a United Nations resolution demanding that Iran immediately free the British marines taken hostage.
Great Britain found it had no support from its allies for clear, strong language. The Security Council issued instead a watered down statement simply expressing "grave concern" over Iran's actions. The will to live without fear no longer exists in Europe. The raison d'etre for NATO's existence -- an attack upon one is an attack upon all -- no longer governs that alliance. There is no surprise in that response, recognizing that the U.S. received the same response from NATO, excepting Great Britain and a few other small nations. Now, Great Britain will be leaving Iraq, as have most of our other allies, departing or reducing their forces.
For all practical purposes, NATO is dead. Its last achievement was stopping the Russian juggernaut and ultimately bringing down the Soviet Union. Europe, now believing it cannot prevent being overwhelmed by the Islamic tide, apparently prefers to accept it.
If on receiving the ultimatum, our allies recognize that they risk losing the future protection of their ally, the U.S., and its armed forces, which saved them from both German and Soviet occupation and protected them for so many years, they may have an epiphany.
No harm in trying. But there can be no bluffing on our part. Either they come in, or we get out.
Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/we_shouldnt_be_alone_in_fighti.html
April 10, 2007
We Shouldn't Be Alone in Fighting Terrorists
By Ed Koch
I still believe there is no greater danger facing the world today than Islamic terrorism.
I also believe that -- based on the information then available and the advice to the president by the CIA and its then director, George Tenet -- our 2003 invasion and liberation of Iraq was justified.
Considering that even Saddam's own generals believed Saddam had WMD, it's easy to understand why the CIA came to an erroneous conclusion. However, if we had known then what we know now about the lack of WMD in Iraq -- we should not have invaded.
Notwithstanding our mistake, we are nevertheless facing in Iraq the heart of the fundamental enemy of Western civilization and moderate Muslim states -- Islamic terrorism. If the United States were supported by our allies with troops on the ground, which is the case in Afghanistan, we should stay in Iraq and endeavor to destroy the insurrectionists and terrorists and assist the Iraqi government to govern Iraq free from terrorism and jihadists.
Make no mistake. The terrorists and jihadists are seeking to turn Iraq into a radical Islamic state devoted to spreading terrorism, and providing sanctuary for those bent on destroying Western civilization. If they could, they would join with Iran to build what they hope would be an invincible army dominating first the Persian Gulf area starting at the Mediterranean Sea and encompassing all of central Asia. Their ultimate goal is to reestablish an Islamic Caliphate, stretching from Spain, across North Africa to the Middle East, central Asia, finally reaching Southeast Asia and Indonesia, an area that today has a population of 1 billion, 400 million Muslims, under one Islamic government and religious leader.
Not every Muslim is a terrorist, nor do all Muslims agree with this goal. But as journalist Abdel Rahman al-Rashed said, "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims."
If the United States, on its own, could defeat the terrorists and their goals by waging the battle now ongoing in Iraq, as President Bush believes we can, I would support that effort. But I, like most Americans, have concluded that we cannot do it alone. The casualties and cost are too great. I believe that unless we are joined by a significant number of our allies, regional and NATO, who would provide combat troops and share in the costs of war, we should leave Iraq.
In pursuit of such a decision, I urge the President to issue an ultimatum to our allies, both regional -- Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, the Gulf States -- and our 25 NATO allies, that unless a significant number reply affirmatively in 30 days to our ultimatum, we will begin immediately the process of withdrawal. At the same time, we should require the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to call a special session of the Iraqi legislature to vote on a resolution stating their request of the U.S. and others to remain in Iraq, specifying the rules of engagement and the goals being sought by the Iraqi government and its allies. If the Iraqi government fails to do so within 30 days, then irrespective of the actions taken by our allies, we should leave. Americans and most of the people of the Western world appear not to know that the United Nations Security Council has approved the U.S. waging war in support of the Iraqi government. Indeed, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, supposedly our ally, recently referred to the U.S. presence in Iraq as "an illegal foreign occupation."
I have no doubt the war will continue for generations yet to come should we leave under any of these circumstances and that we will be compelled to fight that war in our homeland as the jihadists follow us across the seas to attack us here, as they already did in first attacking the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 and again on September 11, 2001. There have been comparable attacks on Great Britain, Spain and other nations, including moderate Muslim countries, by the Islamic terrorists.
I believe there is a good chance that a significant number of our allies will respond affirmatively to our ultimatum, recognizing that they have more to lose than we do when the Iraqi refugees seeking relief from the ongoing civil war start to leave Iraq and stream across the borders of the neighboring states by the millions, bringing with them jihadists and terrorists and their suicide bombers. I recognize there is a greater likelihood that our allies will not respond affirmatively in significant numbers. That is particularly true with respect to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), founded in 1949. Our allies in NATO have lost their will to stand and defend their values, as Great Britain found recently when it sought support from the members of the European Union for a United Nations resolution demanding that Iran immediately free the British marines taken hostage.
Great Britain found it had no support from its allies for clear, strong language. The Security Council issued instead a watered down statement simply expressing "grave concern" over Iran's actions. The will to live without fear no longer exists in Europe. The raison d'etre for NATO's existence -- an attack upon one is an attack upon all -- no longer governs that alliance. There is no surprise in that response, recognizing that the U.S. received the same response from NATO, excepting Great Britain and a few other small nations. Now, Great Britain will be leaving Iraq, as have most of our other allies, departing or reducing their forces.
For all practical purposes, NATO is dead. Its last achievement was stopping the Russian juggernaut and ultimately bringing down the Soviet Union. Europe, now believing it cannot prevent being overwhelmed by the Islamic tide, apparently prefers to accept it.
If on receiving the ultimatum, our allies recognize that they risk losing the future protection of their ally, the U.S., and its armed forces, which saved them from both German and Soviet occupation and protected them for so many years, they may have an epiphany.
No harm in trying. But there can be no bluffing on our part. Either they come in, or we get out.
Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/we_shouldnt_be_alone_in_fighti.html
- Banned
- #247
RSR...the sum total of your contribution to this board is cut and paste long winded articles and one line repeated Hannity/Rush talking points. You really are incapable of independently contributing anything of value or intellectual content.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
RSR...the sum total of your contribution to this board is cut and paste long winded articles and one line repeated Hannity/Rush talking points. You really are incapable of independently contributing anything of value or intellectual content.
My contribution is posting facts that piss you off by proving you are wrong on your rants and defeatest beliefs
- Banned
- #249
My contribution is posting facts that piss you off by proving you are wrong on your rants and defeatest beliefs
you post editorials because you cannot string five words together on your own. you're a joke.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
you post editorials because you cannot string five words together on your own. you're a joke.
You do have a problem with facts MM - like most libs
Rosotar
Member
You do have a problem with facts MM - like most libs
You have yet to post any FACTS RSR!
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
You have yet to post any FACTS RSR!
Libs do dismiss anything that proves them wrong
I understand
Louie
Member
you post editorials because you cannot string five words together on your own. you're a joke.
CTRLALTDEL
Member
I double this.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
you post editorials because you cannot string five words together on your own. you're a joke.
To bad you cannot disprove them
- Banned
- #256
To bad you cannot disprove them
that sentence makes no sense... an editorial is an OPINION.... all I need to do is disagree with it.... there is no need to disprove an opinion.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
that sentence makes no sense... an editorial is an OPINION.... all I need to do is disagree with it.... there is no need to disprove an opinion.
They are based on facts - which you are deathly afraid of
- Banned
- #258
They are based on facts - which you are deathly afraid of
opinions based upon facts? That is your opinion. MY opinions are based upon facts. YOu disagree.
I have an opinion that your statement, for example, that we have seen a 60% decrease in casualties in Iraq due to the surge is bullshit and that it is based upon ONE month-old press release and that it is contradicted by the Department of Defense's own casualty figures. That is MY opinion and IT is based upon facts... and YOU sure as hell seem deathly afraid of THAT.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
opinions based upon facts? That is your opinion. MY opinions are based upon facts. YOu disagree.
I have an opinion that your statement, for example, that we have seen a 60% decrease in casualties in Iraq due to the surge is bullshit and that it is based upon ONE month-old press release and that it is contradicted by the Department of Defense's own casualty figures. That is MY opinion and IT is based upon facts... and YOU sure as hell seem deathly afraid of THAT.
You are great at ignoring the articles and the facts
Keep up the good work - one day they may find a cure for your mental disorder
- Banned
- #260
You are great at ignoring the articles and the facts
Keep up the good work - one day they may find a cure for your mental disorder
all you ever post is editorials.... it is really so fucking lazy fo yout NEVER do your own writing or your own thinking....
and please realize that I do not have a "mental disorder"...that is just another insult from you when you cannot answer the question posed to you.
Will you ever explain the 60% reduction in American casualty assertion and reconcile it with the DoD casualty data?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 40
- Views
- 587
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 311
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 713
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 92
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8073
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-