Dr Grump
Platinum Member
No, frankly, I don't see the difference. Wasn't it like SIX deferments? At least Clinton is honest enough to say what he did.
Cheney was the puppet master......
U.S. Army should take control of American Govmnt, From President Obama.
- Thread starter 52ndStreet
- Start date
No, frankly, I don't see the difference. Wasn't it like SIX deferments? At least Clinton is honest enough to say what he did.
Cheney was the puppet master......
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,541
- 2,165
- Banned
- #322
Cheney was, and is, in my opinion, a force of evil.
EriktheRed
Eh...
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
You folks give Cheney way too much credit.
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
Gordon wasn't bad duty, just couldn't get out of there. But Huachuca was on everyones dream sheet. And i only knew one guy who got there. Retired and then went to work as a DA Civilian GS 12. Lucky bastard.
What's the line between saying someone is siding with the enemy and calling them a traitor? There really isn't one.
I could care less about Mr Cheney. He was not the CIC, nor was I on active duty. But You are so wrong on so many counts. But believe what you will. If you last you will learn what I disagreed with the Bush Admin about, and there were several things. But Mr Obama has already passed that number by and he and his administration are the problem now. Not Mr Bush and Mr Cheney.
So you served more than 3 years and made E4.. OK we got it.
ROTFL! Thank you! It didn't matter cheney was a draft dodger....that's ******* rank hypocrisy. As for the claim cheney was not the CIC.....never mind. Let's stick to your "I'm taking America's side" songs. See ya.
OK Dipshit Cheney had legal deferments, Prove otherwise? Mr Clinton Admits that he "Evaded" the Draft. Do you see the difference here? I was a civilian when Mr Cheney was never the CINC, Understand that? I don't give a shit about Cheney he was the empty seat.
Clinton "evaded" the draft in a perfectly legal manner, and he was far from the only person to do so.
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #328
Not really........
1. I said Iraq and Afghanistan never attacked us.
2. Someone screamed "false!" because Iraq fired on U.S. aircraft in the no-fly zone and that qualifies as an attack on America.
3. I posted a link showing the no-fly zones were not legal because they were unilaterally imposed mainly by the U.S. and were not part of the U.N. Cease Fire.
4. That evidence means Iraq firing on our aircraft that entered it's airspace illegally was not attacking us. We were attacking Iraq and never held up our end of the Cease Fire.
Ollie comes along and poses the "true" question of who's side people are going to take. He patently glossed right over the fact the nfz were not part of the Cease Fire then claimed anyone who does not support our illegal actions is siding with our enemy. It's the same bullshit of "you're with us or against us." One could argue if the nfz were morally acceptable but that was not the topic of the discussion.
Contrary to his false claim I am not taking the "enemies" side. I'm siding with the Rule of Law and it could be easily argued that supporting the nfz is going against America by virtue of supporting the abandonment of the Constitution. People like Ollie are the first to scream how other nations/groups violate laws and America is so awesome because we are a Democracy of good, just, law abiding principles, while at the same damn time find a way to justify any of our illegal bullshit like the nfz or secret prisons.
He can't even be honest and admit he accused me and everyine else who don't support the nz of being a traitor.
Traitor Definition | Definition of Traitor at Dictionary.com
1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust. 2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country. Origin: ...
dictionary.reference.com/browse/traitor
If someone is siding with their nation's enemy they are betraying their own nation. With the definition posted he will now say "okay you're a traitor" because he's way too arrogant to admit that yes he was using a sideways method of accusing people who disagree with his position as being traitors. Hence, that is why I stated he's full of shit to complain about the "love it or leave it" line while preaching the same exact same philosophy with the "take our side or our enemy's side" crap.
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #329
He was running the country on 9E.
He said long before 9E he wanted to invade iraq and install permanent bases.
He was the one who first declared saddam was a threat and had wmd and did this without dubya's knowledge. Of course, that was after he said on 9/16/01 saddam was not a threat to us at all.
He's also thw one that told the 9E commission to **** off and said the only way they could question bush is if
A. They get to review all of the findings up to that date.
B. No transcript allowed.
C. He and bush would meet with the Commission at the exact same time and they could not be individually questioned.
Good job on practicing what you preach about reading up on a subject before speaking on the issue.
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #330
I could care less about Mr Cheney. He was not the CIC, nor was I on active duty. But You are so wrong on so many counts. But believe what you will. If you last you will learn what I disagreed with the Bush Admin about, and there were several things. But Mr Obama has already passed that number by and he and his administration are the problem now. Not Mr Bush and Mr Cheney.
So you served more than 3 years and made E4.. OK we got it.
ROTFL! Thank you! It didn't matter cheney was a draft dodger....that's ******* rank hypocrisy. As for the claim cheney was not the CIC.....never mind. Let's stick to your "I'm taking America's side" songs. See ya.
OK Dipshit Cheney had legal deferments, Prove otherwise? Mr Clinton Admits that he "Evaded" the Draft. Do you see the difference here? I was a civilian when Mr Cheney was never the CINC, Understand that? I don't give a shit about Cheney he was the empty seat.
Cheney was the empty seat? Everyone who pays even scant attention knows cheney was running the show. He dodged the draft with numerous legal loopholes. I don't give a **** if someone hid in canada or under a stack of papers in the States. He refused to serve when called upon at least five times.
Never mind that. Thank you for admitting you hated a politician more than you loved america. That's not twisting anything because you straight up said you refused to serve under a draft dodger. Do our soldiers Serve the Nation or a single person?
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,823
- 87,216
- 2,645
Say what you will about Cheney, but when it came time to serve he's no Joe Biden!
Oh wait, nevermind
Oh wait, nevermind
Ahh, the debated words of Hans von Sponeck rise once more on no-fly zones. U.N. Resolution 688 which not on the U.S. but the U.K. and France have used to enforce those no-fly zones to protect the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South from wholesale slaughter after the Gulf War is wholly conistant with that resolution and therefor did give the authority. Secondly, the UN accepted the cease fire agreement under UN resolution 687 which by the way there are too many violations of that cease fire agreement to mention that further gives authorization for such no-fly zones. One more thing to consider Article 51 of the UN Charter gives those nations the right use pre-emptive measures as a means of self defense so long as those are reported to the Security Council.
The United Nations, the Clinton Administration, and Congress have demanded that Iraq fully comply with cease-fire agreements and applicable U.N. Security Council resolutions. The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) says it has made -considerable progress in dismantling and monitoring of Iraqi mass destruction weapons programs but that Iraq continues to withhold information on its past programs and it cannot verify Iraq's claim that it has destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction or associated equipment. During March 1996-February 1998 and again during August-November 1998, Iraq has hampered the efforts of U.N. inspectors on numerous occasions or ended cooperation altogether, prompting Security Council condemnations, resolutions imposing further sanctions, and threats of military action.
On November 10, 1994, Iraq explicitly accepted the newly designated land border with Kuwait, (confirmed by Resolution 833) as well as Kuwaiti sovereignty. Iraq has said it will cooperate on accounting for Kuwaitis missing since the 1991 war, although there has been very little progress on this issue over the past few years, or on the return of Kuwaiti property. Iraq rejected 1991 U.N. plans to allow it to sell oil to fund humanitarian aid for the Iraqi people, but it later accepted a version of that plan, which became operational in December 1996. When Iraq did not join the original plan, the U.N. Security Council, in October 1992, directed member states to seize some Iraqi assets for these purposes (Resolution 778).
CRS Report: Iraqi Compliance with Cease-Fire Agreements
So all regardless of what Mr. von Sponeck and a few others may say, by violating the cease fire agreement from the very start the US and it's allies were well within their rights to institute these no fly zones.
During the 2007-2008 Presidential election campaign, both Barack Obama and his running mate Joe Biden expressed support for the imposition of a (probably NATO) no-fly zone (NFZ) over Darfur, much like the one maintained by Anglo-American air forces over northern Iraq following the Gulf War.
Stand: Yes or No to a Darfur No-Fly Zone?
I find it troubling to say the least that some would beat the drum for very same no-fly zones to be put in place in Darfur and yet at the same time condemn the same mission for the people in Iraq which was legal contrary to the new revisionist look at it.
Resolution 688
"The Security Council...
Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;
Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to removing the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression...
Insists Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organisations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and make available all necessary facilities for their operations;
Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities;
Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;
Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts;
Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends;
Decides to remain seized of the matter."
The United Nations, the Clinton Administration, and Congress have demanded that Iraq fully comply with cease-fire agreements and applicable U.N. Security Council resolutions. The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) says it has made -considerable progress in dismantling and monitoring of Iraqi mass destruction weapons programs but that Iraq continues to withhold information on its past programs and it cannot verify Iraq's claim that it has destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction or associated equipment. During March 1996-February 1998 and again during August-November 1998, Iraq has hampered the efforts of U.N. inspectors on numerous occasions or ended cooperation altogether, prompting Security Council condemnations, resolutions imposing further sanctions, and threats of military action.
On November 10, 1994, Iraq explicitly accepted the newly designated land border with Kuwait, (confirmed by Resolution 833) as well as Kuwaiti sovereignty. Iraq has said it will cooperate on accounting for Kuwaitis missing since the 1991 war, although there has been very little progress on this issue over the past few years, or on the return of Kuwaiti property. Iraq rejected 1991 U.N. plans to allow it to sell oil to fund humanitarian aid for the Iraqi people, but it later accepted a version of that plan, which became operational in December 1996. When Iraq did not join the original plan, the U.N. Security Council, in October 1992, directed member states to seize some Iraqi assets for these purposes (Resolution 778).
CRS Report: Iraqi Compliance with Cease-Fire Agreements
So all regardless of what Mr. von Sponeck and a few others may say, by violating the cease fire agreement from the very start the US and it's allies were well within their rights to institute these no fly zones.
During the 2007-2008 Presidential election campaign, both Barack Obama and his running mate Joe Biden expressed support for the imposition of a (probably NATO) no-fly zone (NFZ) over Darfur, much like the one maintained by Anglo-American air forces over northern Iraq following the Gulf War.
Stand: Yes or No to a Darfur No-Fly Zone?
I find it troubling to say the least that some would beat the drum for very same no-fly zones to be put in place in Darfur and yet at the same time condemn the same mission for the people in Iraq which was legal contrary to the new revisionist look at it.
Resolution 688
"The Security Council...
Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;
Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to removing the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression...
Insists Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organisations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and make available all necessary facilities for their operations;
Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities;
Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;
Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts;
Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends;
Decides to remain seized of the matter."
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
If you want to be called a traitor , please do not allow me to stand in your way. You are wrong regardless. The USA, Great Brittan and France formed the no fly zones as a method of protecting those Iraqis in the south and the Iraqi kurds in the north from retaliation strikes from Saddam. The reasoning was based upon the cease fire, You refuse to accept that. I do.
Now if you really really want it. You're a ******* low life traitor. Are you happy now? So take your lower enlisted, America hating mentality and go away. You now have everything you have asked for.
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
Hey shit head, I did 22 years, It was my right to retire. **** you very much. And you still give Cheney too much credit.
Now tell me why is my Honorable service to this great country such a problem for you?
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #335
The items listed about cheney are factual but you prolly should stick to your parrot line....that's the safest way to not embarrass yourself further. Also, it is foolish to try and twist what I have said in the hopes of baiting others to jump on your self pity bandwagon. I have not said anything bad at all about your 22 years of Service so your continued baseless accusation is pretty flimsy. What I did do was call out your posturing on why you retired.
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #336
Once again simple communication is lost. It doesn't matter if you "accept" the reasoning or not. I pointed out they were never a part of the cease fire and not UN sanctioned. Facts that get in your way do not automatically cease to being •facts•. It seems kind of strange you retired partly based on what we did to the Kurds but here you are praising we protected them? Do you not see the contradiction? I bet my right.....no....both my heavy balls you don't know when the southern nfz was instituted. You probably think it started at the end of DS.
Your other garbage simply reveals your character. You've clearly accused others who disagree with you as being a traitor simply out of disagreement and mostly by twisting what others say. Your Nationalism prevents any fundamental comprehension of what it means to love or hate America. You obviously wish you were still in the Army and must miss whatever petty authority you had. You just referred to me as "lower enlisted" as if that could produce some type of insult. Between that, the repeated childish name calling, and accusation of being a traitor, I'm quite confident you've embarrassed yourself beyond recovery at this point. Your "America right or wrong is always right!" attitude is exactly what will lead to our ultimate destruction.
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
"Yes you got forced out under Clinton's drawdown plan. After 22 years your highest rank was an E-7. I don't need to read your 201 File to see based on your performance you were forced out. I entered as an E-1 and made E-4 in under three years. Don't try to sell any of that played out DD214 garbage either."
And this is what you call not saying anything bad about my service? OK if you say so. But I suggest you never ever meet me in person. And do try to not respond to my posts except in a professional instead of personal manner. You are an ass, a complete and total ass and I am tired of you.
By the way I am never embarrassed at anything I say or do. But do play again.
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #338
You claimed some bullshit for why you retired....I called that out and by your reaction it is safe to say I was correct. As for meeting you in person.....I've met plenty like you in person. They usually scurry home to put on their "I'm a real man tough guy" suit then sit at the computer and type veiled threats. You opened the personal can of worms and now that you don't like the results you want dictate how I respond to you? I respect the wishes of those who have earned respect. Guess which category you have fallen under tough guy?
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
Ok, realism check, you were a lower enlisted who obviously has a chip on their shoulder for authority figures, I represent one of those who held authority over you, therefore you think you can talk shit and put me down in an internet forum.
Nice try tough guy act but it doesn't wash. You have no idea what Senior enlisted personnel thought about and talked about or what motivated them to remain on active duty. Yet you attacked me with your BS about my being forced out when the exact opposite was true.
Now once again, if you have anything to respond to me or my posts with , then keep it professional, I haven't looked to see if there is an ignore feature on this site but you are certainly tempting.
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #340
Lol....no you don't represent an authority figure...at all. You represent much of what is fucked up about the current direction and actions of our nation. You spent 22 years of your life defending freedom then come on the internet and try to silence that freedom by accusing those who disagree with you of being traitors to America. You wave your military career around as a universal license to censor other views. Want an accurate realism check? You're pissed your time in service and rank doesn't give you the trump card you thought you would have. Was that professional enough?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
brainstorm question for light experiment- Started by trevorjohnson83
- Replies: 1
-
