Heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, by chrisisall

America loves a winner!

Waiting 10 + yrs for Saddam to comply with U.N. sanctions isn't , at least by my standards, " rushing into " any damn thing.

Killing stopped Hilter.

Brought an end to slavery in the U.S.

Gave birth to the greatest nation on Earth......

Give war a chance, Chris.

REORaptor is all

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Waiting 10 + yrs for Saddam to comply with U.N. sanctions isn't , at least by my standards, " rushing into " any damn thing.

Um, doodie head, the war was rushed into, the circumstances were around for a while, again your assessment is incorrect & juvenile.

Quote:

Killing stopped Hilter.

Brought an end to slavery in the U.S.

Gave birth to the greatest nation on Earth......

Ancient history, Are you saying we should never strive to 'evolve beyond that'?

Quote:

Give war a chance, Chris.

Spoken, er, I mean, typed like a true hawk. A chickenhawk at that, since you obviously didn't personally believe in war enough to go to Iraq yourself & espouse your views of freedom through war to the Iraqi peeps.

The condemning Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 12:21 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Um, doodie head, the war was rushed into, the circumstances were around for a while, again your assessment is incorrect & juvenile.

I just love how you utterly ignore history and cover your eyes to the facts. 10 god damn years went by, and Saddam wasn't living up to his obligations. He NEVER WAS GOING TO. We have 2 choices, forget all the crimes he had committed, look the other way ( hello, Cambodia ? ) and pretend none of it ever happened, or make a stand. Civilization demanded that we make a stand, even if you don't agree.

Fighting for one's rights isn't a lack of evolution, it's quite the opposite.

And Chickenhawks are hawks that hunt and eat chickens, partner. That bogus name game you pussies on the Left try isn't going to work on me. Sorry.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 12:24 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... and Saddam wasn't living up to his obligations ..."

Except, he did. No WMDs - remember ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

10 god damn years went by, and Saddam wasn't living up to his obligations. He NEVER WAS GOING TO. We have 2 choices, forget all the crimes he had committed, look the other way ( hello, Cambodia ? ) and pretend none of it ever happened, or make a stand.

Oh, sorry, I thought we went to war with Iraq because, like, they had WMD & ties to the 9-11 attack and stuff.
I just hate how you utterly ignore history and cover your eyes to the facts.

Quote:
Civilization demanded that we make a stand, even if you don't agree.

I, uh, must've had my headphones on when that demand was voiced...

Quote:

Fighting for one's rights isn't a lack of evolution, it's quite the opposite.

What rights of ours was Saddam threatening, again?

The needling Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

And Chickenhawks are hawks that hunt and eat chickens

BTW, thanks for being consistent & avoiding the main question at the top of the thread- I knew you couldn't address it directly.

"If the report from the Brits had said that Saddam had a nuke riding an ICBM ready to launch at the U.S. within the hour, would Bush have then just nuked Iraq?" <----yeah, that one.

The torturing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 12:32 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"... and Saddam wasn't living up to his obligations ..."

Except, he did. No WMDs - remember ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Actually, you're wrong. The 17 UN Resolutions are just some of things he failed to live up to, there were also other things, like targeting US planes in the no fly zone, and dozens of other things, which go back to the cease fire ( remember, no peace treaty was signed ) from the 1st Gulf War.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 12:36 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
"If the report from the Brits had said that Saddam had a nuke riding an ICBM ready to launch at the U.S. within the hour, would Bush have then just nuked Iraq?"

Oh, I thought you meant the other one, which I thought was more rhetorical, so I didn't think needed an answer anyways.

Why would Bush need to nuke anything ? If he had intel, or anyone else had intel on a specific ICBM, we'd simply Cruise Missile the hell out of it.

Tactically, your question is pretty silly.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If he had intel, or anyone else had intel on a specific ICBM, we'd simply Cruise Missile the hell out of it.

Tactically, your question is pretty silly.

So, what direct threat concerning WMD was there again? You know, the one that made attacking at that moment so critical?

Boy did you fall into that one- I was sure you'd a seen that coming.

Tactically, you have no case, clue, or any other gorram thing, and you just proved it for all to see, heh heh.

The triumphant Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 12:45 PM

America loves a winner!

You spend so much time ignoring the facts, forgetting the history and instead try to weave some sort of alternate universe where your world view makes sense.

Dude, get over it. The war is over. Congress voted Bush the use of force, he used it, we fought, we won, and now we're moving on.

Why keep this shit going ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 12:53 PM

Quote:
Why keep this shit going ?

Oh yes, what we all fall back on when we are losing an argument...

You deflect with the best of 'em, 'Rappy.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 12:53 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
What rights of ours was Saddam threatening, again?

Our right to invade him! How can you not GET that?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 1:04 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:
Why keep this shit going ?

Oh yes, what we all fall back on when we are losing an argument...

You deflect with the best of 'em, 'Rappy.

The laughing Chrisisall

No deflection here, what so ever. I just fail to see what point is being served here. I answered your question, and still, all you do is ridicule my response. What purpose is served by my answering you at all ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 1:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I answered your question, and still, all you do is ridicule my response.

Why yes, I do seem to be doing that...

Quote:
What purpose is served by my answering you at all ?

Honestly, I enjoy seeing you dig yourself deeper & deeper into a pit of illogic; I'm twisted that way.

The entertained Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
What rights of ours was Saddam threatening, again?

Our right to invade him! How can you not GET that?

Oh, well, now that I KNOW...

The enlightened Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 1:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Civilization demanded that we make a stand, even if you don't agree.

Actually, most of the civilized world wanted us to stay the fuck out of it.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You spend so much time ignoring the facts, forgetting the history and instead try to weave some sort of alternate universe where your world view makes sense.

I love how you keep accusing others of your favorite tactic. It's my favorite thing about you.

So, what facts are we ignoring? What was the immanent threat you spoke of?

I shall await your answer with baited breath (knowing that I won't get one, but will receive another invective-riddled dodge).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 3:09 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

This is a comment aside from the main discussion, but I wanted to interrupt.

The "if you believe in war so much, you'd join the army and be over there right now" argument is a bad one.

We would not expect every man and woman who approved of a military action to immediately sign up for the military. Nor would we expect every person who approved of a UN aid mission to immediately sign up for that mission. While joining the military is the most direct way to support a policy, it isn't the only way and it's not even necessarily the best way.

Obviously, industry and infrastructure must continue to operate. People can make positive contributions to the nation without picking up an assault rifle.

People against the war shouldn't be forced to leave government service, and people in favor of the war shouldn't be forced to sign up. Starship Troopers is the science-fiction novel where voting rights are tied to military service. We live in the United States.

Now, I'm all in favor for hearing arguments about a Constitutional ammendment to tie having an opinion to military service, but until that ammendment is passed, I'd like to stop seeing the 'why don't you join the army, then' statement.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 3:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

The "if you believe in war so much, you'd join the army and be over there right now" argument is a bad one.

Of course it is, but it's a good way of dealing with an irritating person of limited cognitive function like AU.

The raucous Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 5:43 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Study: False statements preceded war
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_ on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study;_ylt=As9VGMLqrKY..TFOnwU_Az.s0NUE

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said he could not comment on the study because he had not seen it.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 5:52 PM

DREAMTROVE

Lol. I hope this was humor.

Hitler committed suicide. His successor was then defeated by the soviets. Nothing in the war stopped the holocaust, in fact, it probably aided it. I suspect the peaceniks of the 30s were right, and we should have negotiated with the Germans for the safe release of the jews, to either the US or Israel, some safe haven. Instead, we all went balls to the wall with bombs and everyone died. Great success story.

War did nothing for Slavery, slavery was already banned, and all lincoln did was kill a million people. His successors got to end slavery, but it would have ended anyway, as it had everywhere else, except Brazil, 1881.

America is a great place. The United States is a flawed institution that probably deserves its place among the great evils of all time. Fortunately, it is made up of member states with a lot of fine traits. If only we could have a loose alliance like NATO and lose this whole govt. in DC.

DT, being unpatriotic, if patriotism is blind loyalty to an oligarchy in DC. I'm not from the capitol, and it's not technically one of the united states, so I see no reason that any of us should pay any attention to it, let alone loyalty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 8, 2008 7:49 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Thank you DT.

Being very tired from dealing with a situation downright ugly enough to appall even me, I've just add on little question to the matter, since you've covered most of the rest.

Who helped install and propped up Saddam in the first place, and why ?

-Frem

PS. Not at liberty to discuss the "situation" locally no more, legal reasons.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 3:55 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"... and Saddam wasn't living up to his obligations ..."

Except, he did. No WMDs - remember ?

Except the ones they found. And the missiles. And the shooting at allied aircraft in the no fly zone every other day. Oh, and accounting for thousands of Kuwati civilian prisoners (and one American pilot). Not to mention allowing the inspectors full access (after all, trying to hide the extent of your weapons program was a violation, regardless of the motive). And so on.

People thought Iraq had these weapons. Iraq was hiding the fact they didn't have these weapons. Iraq did a better job of concealing the truth then we did of finding the truth. Therefore the invasion was ultimately Iraq's own fault.

Saddam was in a bad spot. If he revealed the truth, Iraq's international prestige and his government would have been severely weakened. Making him like Libya at best or overthrown at worst.

On the other hand he faced pressure from the US and its allies to fully disclose. But the US's allies had been systematically undermined by the giant oil bribes and the US had a history of blustering and saber rattling, but ultimately doing nothing (Clinton's 1998 air war, 30 days of bombing followed by...nothing).

Saddam gambled and lost.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 4:00 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Honestly, I enjoy seeing you dig yourself deeper & deeper into a pit of illogic; I'm twisted that way.

But I'm not doing that. It's only something you're preprogrammed to say, no matter what I say, simply because I know the reasons why we went to war, and you chose to ignore them. I recite to you the history, and you come how cliam I'm " digging myself deeper and deeper into a pit of illogic ", all because you think the war was unjust. It's you who is stuck in an illogic loop, not I.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 4:05 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You spend so much time ignoring the facts, forgetting the history and instead try to weave some sort of alternate universe where your world view makes sense.

I love how you keep accusing others of your favorite tactic. It's my favorite thing about you.

So, what facts are we ignoring? What was the immanent threat you spoke of?

I shall await your answer with baited breath (knowing that I won't get one, but will receive another invective-riddled dodge).

The imminent threat is a straw dog which the Left loves to toss around, when ever they can't address the issue. Bush never said there was an immentent threat, and you know it. You keep replaying this lie, time after time after time..... " no, but his administration said it, blah blah blah " If I'm guilty of dodging anything, it's only because I've already gone over this, dozens of times, and yet you IDIOTS on the Left keep bringing up over and over and over again. Sorry, that dog won't hunt, buddy.

We gave Saddam and Iraq time to comply, they didn't, we followed up on our word to forcibly take Saddam out of power. And we did.

Deal.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 4:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

The imminent threat is a straw dog which the Left loves to toss around, when ever they can't address the issue. Bush never said there was an immentent threat, and you know it.

It's been quoted for you, noodle-brain, and THIS is what I mean when I say 'a pit of illogic'. Keep tossing around phrases like 'The imminent threat is a straw dog' and 'I deal in facts only'... it's highly entertaining, please, go on.

The roaring Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Hitler committed suicide. His successor was then defeated by the soviets. Nothing in the war stopped the holocaust, in fact, it probably aided it. I suspect the peaceniks of the 30s were right, and we should have negotiated with the Germans for the safe release of the jews, to either the US or Israel, some safe haven. Instead, we all went balls to the wall with bombs and everyone died. Great success story.

War did nothing for Slavery, slavery was already banned, and all lincoln did was kill a million people. His successors got to end slavery, but it would have ended anyway, as it had everywhere else, except Brazil, 1881.

AURaptor cannot see or read this post- the chip does not allow it.

But nice to see ya around, DT!!!!

The welcome-back Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 4:55 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
It's been quoted for you

No it hasn't, not from Bush.

You're wrong, you know you're wrong, and yet you keep reveling in your wrongness as some sort of victory.

How lame.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 4:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

We gave Saddam and Iraq time to comply, they didn't, we followed up on our word to forcibly take Saddam out of power.

Okay, I'll play this for a moment, even though it was only part of the whole thing-

"US Secretary of State Colin Powell said a month ago, 'The question isn't how much longer do you need for inspections to work. Inspections will not work.' (Independent, 23 Jan., p. 1)

Iraqi co-operation with inspectors is an obstacle to war. Therefore it must be rubbished. President Bush has sought to dismiss Iraqi compliance: 'Saddam Hussein can now be expected to begin another round of empty concessions, transparently false denials. No doubt he will play a last minute game of deception. The game is over.'"

AND:

"Certainly, paragraph 13 amounts to an implied threat of "serious consequences" if Iraq breaches its obligations in the future. But nothing in paragraph 13 suggests that the consequences would be decided upon and taken by anyone other than the body that has, under the procedure established in the immediately preceding paragraphs 11 and 12, been given responsibility for deciding how to respond to material breaches: that is, by the Security Council itself."
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Rai_Iraq-LastPush.htm

Ha! You lose on the main point; you lose on the ancillary point.
Basically, you lose.

The indomitable Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 5:05 AM

America loves a winner!

Chrissy, you're wrong, and I'm not playing this game again for, the 134th time.

Any memnber nation could have gone in and taken out Saddam for his non compliance. The US is a member nation of the U.N., acted fully with in its rights , did so, along w/ 30 some other nations, end of story.

I'm right, you're wrong.

I win, you lose.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 5:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

No it hasn't, not from Bush.

Watch closely, I'll do it again:
(Closely now)

"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so," the president said. "Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decision of others."
"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late,"

Did you read it? Oh, you wanna say that the word 'imminent' was not used there, right? Wrong, gobbledegook mouth, the very fabric of what's being said (preventing sudden, suddenly emerge) is the definition of 'imminent', so play 'precision sophistry' if you want to, we all (Like, world all) know how entirely wrong you are on almost every point you've made on this issue.

*points & laughs*

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 5:09 AM

DREAMTROVE

Frem

Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and GHW Bush specifically. Yeah, I know you know that. But no reason to be partisan, the plan started under the Carter admin, where democrats Wolfowitz and Perle were on the job. Okay, so the thing that I've become more certain of in my absense is that there are no parties. Just one party with two names.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 5:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Any memnber nation could have gone in and taken out Saddam for his non compliance. The US is a member nation of the U.N., acted fully with in its rights , did so, along w/ 30 some other nations, end of story.

ANY memnber?
Hey- I'm a member of the YMCA, so if they say another member is late with fees, that means I can round up some like-minded fellas & go to the guy's house and TAKE his money in the name of the place to which I am a member...cool!

Pathetic try, AU, your desperation does put a smile on my face, though.

The hysterical Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 5:21 AM

DREAMTROVE

ROFL

I think you're right. I suspect Auraptor's chip malfunctioned in the explosion. He's right, he's definitely not a conservative or a liberal, he's a troll, with a tendency towards fascism.

As a troll, I apologize for feeding it. Ah, where is Pirate News when you need him.

As for real world events, someone just mentioned them. I don't think that anything au says has anything to do with real world events.

Also, to whoever posted that, the name of this forum is not "partisan politics." Can we ban partisan politics? It seems like a lot of arguing over nothing.

No one is commenting on pirates. I recall two years ago predicting this would be a major story, and that Church of the FSM was way off on piracy trends.

Anyway, good to be back. If I kick things about, it's probably because politics are starting to bore me. Seriously, this election, I couldn't tell the difference between the tickets. I don't think it made a difference.

I voted for McKinney, because that said lunatic conspiracy theorist, and Ron Paul wasn't running, so I had to vote for someone, and Nader was already in too much debt.

Only one thing really surprised me about Obama. Manny's and Volloy's? Please. I mean, you live in Hyde Park, but you're also rich. Have some class. Uno's or something. I mean, there are good restaurants here man. It is somewhat freakish to think that this means I was undoubtedly at some point eating toxic slush on the next table over from Obama.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 6:27 AM

America loves a winner!

Chris, you interpret what you want to be true. Not what is.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 6:30 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Any memnber nation could have gone in and taken out Saddam for his non compliance. The US is a member nation of the U.N., acted fully with in its rights , did so, along w/ 30 some other nations, end of story.

ANY memnber?
Hey- I'm a member of the YMCA, so if they say another member is late with fees, that means I can round up some like-minded fellas & go to the guy's house and TAKE his money in the name of the place to which I am a member...cool!

Pathetic try, AU, your desperation does put a smile on my face, though.

The hysterical Chrisisall

It's what the UN resolutions say, dim bulb. Has nothing to do with your YMCA dues. See? You interpret only what you WISH were true, not what is.

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area ;

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 8:27 AM

Bush may have not literally said the word imminent (though saying "Gravest threat today" is pretty fuckin' close), but plenty of his direct representatives did.

Which I know won't matter to Rappy, becuase the Pres isn't actually responsible for anything that happens under his watch, unless it's something good, and then only he gets credit.

And this is why we find you so very, very laughable.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 8:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap,

So you are agreeing that Hussein was NOT a threat --- right ?

Select to view spoiler:

http://hotstory.nationaljournal.com/articles/0302nj1.htm

In January 2003, Waas says, the president was handed a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate. "The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if 'ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime' or if he intended to 'extract revenge' for such an assault, according to records and sources." There was one exception, Waas says: The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research said Saddam was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland" even if a U.S. invasion threatened his regime.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area ;

So, candy WRApper, you see attacking Iraq as using "all necessary means to...restore international peace and security in the area"

That's a Helluva way to interpret THAT.

BTW, thanks for handing me the means to further disgrace you, I appreciate it.

The BWAHAHAHAHA Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

And this is why we find you so very, very laughable.

I'm wipin' away tears of laughter my own self...if he had any brains at all he'd just refrain from posting & watch his new DVD "Bush, the Man, the Myth, the Miracle" over & over.

The on-the-floor Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:35 PM

America loves a winner!

Chris, your ignorance is ever increasing. Keep it up.

Rue, Iraq was a threat, everyone knew that. End of discussion.

Skidmark, Bush wasn't the only one who said Iraq was a fuckin' threat. Fuckin' read the fuckin' link, you fuckin' fuck.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out ." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Seriously, nothing new here is being brought up, just the same tired old shit, over and over again.

I'm done w/ this thread.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:43 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Rue, Iraq was a threat, everyone knew that. End of discussion."

Except the people who did the NIE in 2003.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm done w/ this thread.

*And the crowd goes wild!!!*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 1:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Skidmark, Bush wasn't the only one who said Iraq was a fuckin' threat. Fuckin' read the fuckin' link, you fuckin' fuck.

Never said he was, you halfwit. You can't even keep track of the topic at hand (He didn't say that... oh, he did... well he wasn't the only one!). That's adorable.

Read what I wrote you blah blah blah blah blah (trying to keep things at your level here, for courtesy's sake).

But thank you for once again showing your aversion to discussing the topic at hand, and instead trying to deflect it, or, as they say, "move the goalposts".

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 2:32 PM

SWISH

Huh. The strongest argument Auraptor can make is a quote from the "rightwingnews" web site. Now I know he's Stephen Colbert, cause that's just too funny to be real!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 2:43 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Huh. The strongest argument Auraptor can make is a quote from the "rightwingnews" web site. Now I know he's Stephen Colbert, cause that's just too funny to be real!

Slay the messenger much? You don't even care WHO said what, do you ? None of that fucking matters, because we know sure as hell no " unbiased " web site would give you that info, nooooo.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 3:11 PM