Soldiers facing more attacks..

[spillmind]

and hey, if we are going back to the label game, the redhead doesn't want your number. she says conservative guys are terrible lovers. and that's an actual quote!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
jim, you are going off on something irrelevant.

you are taking in your own context, and not how i meant them.

by saying that there was communication between iraq and the taliban doesn't mean shit. i am sorry. rummy even said so.

face the facts. must you insist on denial? we are not talking about this large network you are reaching for to link iraq to 9-11.
we are talking about plugging a humanitarian issue as grounds for invading iraq. does this make ANY sense to you?

your posts have time and time again tried to dismiss me, and it's only a front your put when you wish there was closure. in your mind there may well be. but then again, you think nukes are a good idea. marker, anyone?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/ww.wav

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
and hey, if we are going back to the label game, the redhead doesn't want your number. she says conservative guys are terrible lovers. and that's an actual quote!

It was a JOKE you ignoramus, no self respecting man in the world would be caught dead with either of those 2 beasts! (unless of course you happen to be gay)

 

[spillmind]

once again, jimnyc, the man who 'claims' to sport a 145 IQ, reduced to name calling and posting babble.

try a topic once in a while. if you can pull it.

yeah, i'm sure it was a joke. rejection hurts, don't it? i'm sure you're sporting a hottie over there in NYC. let me guess, a white girl? ANY girl? lord know you ain't got the balls to post any pictures about your life.

now, can we get back to the topic, or have you forgotten?

i'll assume since you aren't posting an arguement to my accusations of the falsely righteous humanitarian claims, i'll assume you agree. i think you meant: YOU WERE FINISHED. but hey, i didn't say it.

 

[spillmind]

better yet jim, since you are so dedicated to tangents, why don't you try chewing on this one:

when do you think halliburton will leave iraq?

and it sure as hell ain't going to be 'iraq's' (i am assuming NT meant the PEOPLE of iraq) call! unless you don't read the news of current! the reality does not match your people's speculation and newfound optimisim!

the day iraq embraces democracy is the day i eat my shorts, mr. burns. it ain't gonna happen! you people think it already has!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
better yet jim, since you are so dedicated to tangents, why don't you try chewing on this one:

when do you think halliburton will leave iraq?

and it sure as hell ain't going to be 'iraq's' (i am assuming NT meant the PEOPLE of iraq) call! unless you don't read the news of current! the reality does not match your people's speculation and newfound optimisim!

the day iraq embraces democracy is the day i eat my shorts, mr. burns. it ain't gonna happen! you people think it already has!

Personally, I could care less if Iraq was occupied by Military Forces or Halliburton for eternity!

But realistically, I think they should be there until the situation is completely sorted out and those in "the know" in Iraq are properly trained on all aspects. This IS Iraq and their future, and it shouldn't be just handed over to those that will run it into the ground and use it for their own personal gain. Say whatever you will, but the longer they are there, the better off Iraq is! It's our government paying Halliburton, not the Iraqi people.

Once the new government is up and running there, and the oil situation is running smoothly, they will be able to thrive. How long will this all take? Not sure myself, but if it takes 5 years it'll be well worth it. When and if the Middle East starts acting like humans and not cannibals the entire region will start to thrive. The better off they are in that region, the better off we will ALL be.

 

[spillmind]

ok, tangents it is.

oh, and i am not suprised you would say this! so spare me this better for the iraqis crap, and don't be suprised when people get pissed at this type of arrogance... watch for a coup in pakistan.

guess who's got the bomb then? let me repeat 'bring 'em on!'

sounding pretty shortsided to anyone yet?

'Once the new government is up and running there, and the oil situation is running smoothly, they will be able to thrive. How long will this all take? Not sure myself, but if it takes 5 years it'll be well worth it. When and if the Middle East starts acting like humans and not cannibals the entire region will start to thrive. The better off they are in that region, the better off we will ALL be.'

thank the LORD that you posted something serious with content!

this is optimism. and they call *me* utopian!

as the article from the post i posted states, no foreign investors will move into ANY unstable region. this is a precursor for any kind of international economic growth. i don't see this region being stable, EVER.

I don't see afghanistan doing very well, unless you know something i don't... stability? democracy? all utopian ideals in a predominatly unstable region. the problem are the nations surrounding these nations.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
i'm sure you're sporting a hottie over there in NYC. let me guess, a white girl? ANY girl? lord know you ain't got the balls to post any pictures about your life.

No problem here!

Here is a pic of me and family shortly after my son was born...

 

[jimnyc]

And here is one of me recently while on vacation in Florida.

 

[NightTrain]

'Since '91, several things have happened that proved to the world that Saddam was more of a threat than originally thought.' ...BS! I think he was just as bad IF NOT WORSE THEN ! still! this does not explain why the safety of the iraqi people is suddenly so damn important!

Whoa! Slow down, little fella! This was in response to your challenge wondering what the difference is between Saddam in '91 and '03.

Did I sufficiently quash your bleats? If not, review points A through E.

Next!

i implore you to post a link or anything that PROVES these ties, or stop pluggin this crap. i'm sure rummy would be interested. I’d sure LOVE TO SEE IT!

Oh, you don't believe me about Saddam's links to Al Qaeda? Here you go :

Exerpt from : http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/09/inv.czech.atta/

CNN first reported on September 19 that U.S. officials had information about a meeting between Atta and Iraqi agents earlier this year, but said at the time they did not think Iraq was involved.

The officials did not reveal the name of any Iraqis involved.

Officials later told CNN that the April meeting was actually Atta's second with Iraqi agents in Prague.

The first meeting was in June 2000, and in both meetings the Iraqis were operating under "official cover" as diplomats.

Zeman also said that support has been offered to the United States in the war on terror -- an anti-chemical unit, Czech rangers, field hospitals and planes.

There's plenty more, do yourself a favor and stop making yourself look like a complete fool by arguing against what is documented fact.

Next!

'So, what we gave Saddam is termed 'perishable' aid. IE : intelligence that has a limited life span, such as pictures of the battle front, troop locations, convoys, etc. The reason this was done was to balance out the war & it worked. It finally ground to a halt with neither side making massive gains.

thank you for admitting it, albeit begrudgingly. '

I don't think so, Zippy. What I did was explain to you what we did for Iraq & why. Payroll? I think not! I crushed another one of your weak & unsupported arguments - I did not admit to you that they were on our 'payroll'.

Next!

You want records of what we supplied… didn’t the moderator go off on you for posting a totally skewed chart saying that we supplied ‘much less’ to iraq?

Moderator? Uhh... I thought you knew. Jim, Creek and myself are the moderators of this Forum. I know nothing much gets past your razor sharp mind and quick wit, but take a look at the right side of the screen under 'Moderator' on the main Message Board page.

Dan, who is a moderator in a few other forums on this board, theorized that whoever put together that chart was biased.
Convenient of you to forget my response to him : "Does it? Sweden was on our side? I eagerly await your response as to how Dubya bought the SIPRI."
The chart is accurate.
SIPRI is the Swedish International Peace Research Institute, FYI.

You've lost what little credibility you had - you've been completely overwhelmed with common sense & facts, and instead of trying to build a solid case for your hand-wringing, bleeding-heart liberal views, you attempt diversion. Not going to work, my young Grasshopper!

NEXT!

 

[janeeng]

Nice pics Jim! love my baby boy!!! he's too cute! and spillmind, wonder what your with, those 2 girls, what you think? sister and friend??? that's what it sure looks like to me!

 

[spillmind]

THANK GOD i don't have to reply to something NT took all night putting together. too bad the mullet gets you on these trips like repeating 'next' for some strange reason. sadism?

I guess you people can agree that we can link any 'terrorist' to any other by any kind of means, if we stretch it far enough. what does it mean, is up for interpretation. you people seem to think what this means is that iraq and the taliban were regular collaborators. sorry, but this just isn't the case.

no link anybody has provided has proven that the taliban and the ba'ath party were close allies and supported each other. ...which is where i think you guys are *trying* to go with this. i say you tie every other link equal or closer, and put them on a pedastal like you did iraq. (here we go with the 'um, ok, that's just one of many reasons) all too predictable.

despite the

with all the time i spend merely replying to these posts, i don't have time to dig to see who is the moderator. nor do i really care. i didn't see it under your info or avatar, so apathy reigns in that case.

i repect your point of view, NT, but you have to admit, receiving aid is another way of saying 'on our payroll'. while it may not add up to other countries contributions, it *is* aid, and should be viewed as equal to other contributions. if you can't admit this, it is very telling.

let's take a look at exactly where we stand on iraq:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ashpost/20030924/ts_washpost/a54800_2003sep23

looks like bush is a one timer like papa.

 

[5stringJeff]

One low poll does not a doomed second election make. The Dems first have to put up a viable candidate, which they have not... but I think this is a thread for a different board.

Originally posted by spillmind
let's take a look at exactly where we stand on iraq:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ashpost/20030924/ts_washpost/a54800_2003sep23

looks like bush is a one timer like papa.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
no link anybody has provided has proven that the taliban and the ba'ath party were close allies and supported each other. ...which is where i think you guys are *trying* to go with this. i say you tie every other link equal or closer, and put them on a pedastal like you did iraq. (here we go with the 'um, ok, that's just one of many reasons) all too predictable.

Nobody was trying to prove a permanent relation between Saddam and the Taliban. The original statement was that Saddam had links to terrorists. This was in answering your question about what made Saddam more evil now than in '91.

There are/were PLENTY of links. What he could have done or would have done we'll never know, and thats the whole point. After 9/11 we weren't going to sit back and see just how close his ties were with organizations that were willing to try striking at America or its allies.

He was a terrorist. He supported terrorists and harbored them. "We will make no distinction"! So no, there is no need to list off 'other reasons', that alone in my book is enough to blow up this scumbag and his regime. Iraq is better off without him, America is better off without him, the entire world is better off without him.

Talk about going off on tangents, what would you like to add to the argument next? You conveniently keep adding bits and pieces with every post! Are you that frustrated with losing that you'll rearrange the argument in mid breath to something that you think supports your position? Wake up your brain, Spilly!

You lose.

You get nothing.

Good day, Sir!

 

[NightTrain]

Amen, Rev! Jim summed it up in a nutshell.

Emmm... wtf is a mullet, anyway? That's a new one for me and it's not in my dictionary in any context that makes any sense.

THANK GOD i don't have to reply to something NT took all night putting together.

Heh. Roughly 15 minutes. Of course you can't reply to it. At this point I would be floored to see straightforward logic displayed by you.

Take your defeat like a man and admit you are wrong. I certainly would, were I in your bunny slippers.

 

[Dan]

Emmm... wtf is a mullet, anyway? That's a new one for me and it's not in my dictionary in any context that makes any sense.

If you were being sarcastic, please ignore the following post.

Anyway, a mullet is a haircut in which the top and bangs are very short, then the back is very long. "Business up front, party in the back", as they say. Joe Dirt had one.

Yeah, can you tell I live in SC?

 

[NightTrain]

Nope, that was a legit question on my part!

Thanks, Dan.

 

[spillmind]

not much more to say to NT, since he cannot be objective if his life depended on it. a million ridiculous reasons to put iraq on the forefront right after 9-11, save for Bush's need to keep the war machine rolling.

'Take your defeat like a man and admit you are wrong. I certainly would, were I in your bunny slippers.'

coming from someone who thinks Hummers are 'awesome'.

you certainly have the freedom to be a gluttonous arrogant self congratulating citizen, but don't be suprised when people don't subscribe to your type of mentality.

it doesn't really matter, since Bush will be out in 04', and you guys can cry about the current corrupt politician basically doing the same thing with a different label. hopefully minus the UNNECESSARY body count.

 

[NightTrain]

Since you are whipped, I just gotta ask you this :

What nationality are you? Black? Hispanic?

And, you know, you should at least have the grace to tell Jim, Eric, Jeff, Creek and myself that we are right, that you learned something and that your hat is off to us.

It's the gentlemanly thing to do.

It's been enjoyable debating you, thanks for the fun!

NT

 

[eric]

Well said NT!