LearJett+ Posted August 11, 2005 Report Posted August 11, 2005 Agreed. Now the US is in a catch-22 situation. To pull out now could destroy any opportunity to build a democratic, pro-US government in Iraq. It would also abandon a government that is not yet stable. If we left now, it would still be easy for the next warlord over to just come in and take over - or for an extremist revolution to happen and a newer, worse-than-Baath party to take over. Hitler had it easy coming to power after we ditched them in the end of WWI.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 12, 2005 Report Posted August 12, 2005 It's hard to post on here when you're a conservative in a sea of liberals. I won't even tryWorthless to the rescue!!!!!!! What burns me is that people think that the government is taking a righteous fight to end terrorism. There are other reasons why the government does what it does. The people thought the Holocaust was one of the reasons we went to war with Germany. Yet destroying the concentration camps was not a priority until the very end of the war. If it had been, millions of lives would have been saved. You come off as a fairly intelligent guy but bonehead statements like these completely throw off your credibility. Wanna know the reasoning behind not going after the concentration camps at the begining of the US involvment in World War 2? I'm no expert, but perhaps its because they were all located in Germany/Poland and surrounding areas, basically smack dab in Nazi land. I'm sure Hitler wouldn't mind us strolling into the heart of his occupied territory and taking out the concentration camps, then leaving. Sounds like a stellar war plan. At one point the troops knew exactly where Osama Bin Laden was. It's called the Battle of Tora Bora. Our troops knew he was there, but we left the biggest escape routes open. Hmm....The site of Tora Bora is basically a big!@#$%^&* mountain chain that consists of dozens of cave systems. Saying "We knew Osama was at Tora Bora" is like saying the Russians knew Hitler was in Berlin. We're talking a very large landscape, and war is always chaos. Was it a blunder? !@#$%^&* yeah it was. Did the administration let him escape? Doubtful, and frankly you have no proof to support anything contrary. Then again that fits alot of the "theories" against the current administration. As for Saddam Hussein waking up one day and not being an !@#$%^&*, do you believe that Kim Jong II of North Korea is going to wake up one day and decide to not be an !@#$%^&*? Look what he is doing starving his own people and he is even researching nuclear weapons. That is a very big threat to our national security too. That is a much better reason to go to war. I love it when regurgitators throw around other regimes as ammunition to the arguement of why we shouldn't be attacking Iraq. We'll make a deal, whenever we deal with Kim Jong for over a decade, and he consistantly throws the UN the bird like Saddam did, we'll deal with him then. Until that point, lets let diplomatic means of controling psycho paths try and work. Yet these two countries do not offer us what certain members of the administration want. Oil! North Korea does not have oil and Saudi Arabia is already selling us oil in large quan!@#$%^&*ies. Iraq was not selling us any oil at all since we had an embargo on them. Have you ever seen the do!@#$%^&*entary Farenheight 9/11? You should watch it and see what is really going on.At this point in the game only the extreme liberal left and the mis-informed still use the oil arguement for the war. Judging from the content of your posts I really don't want to put you in the category, but then reading you referencing Farenheight 9-11 as a "do!@#$%^&*entary", and citing it forces me to put you there. Are you !@#$%^&*ing serious? Moore has got to be the biggest crackjob the worlds ever seen, he's a self serving liberal maniac who heavily edited "footage" to fit his political agenda. Do not say that I am weak on terror either. I have been a proud resident of New York City my whole life. I was affected by 9/11 much more than someone from Arkansas or Montana. Yet the people who support what the President is doing are mostly the people from areas of low risk. OO, I'm from Arkansas, can I comment? Why are the people in the highest risk areas mostly in opposition of what the President is doing? It is because they know what his administration is doing is only putting us more at risk. Us in New York are being put at risk because of this administration's actions not the people of low population areas. Why would terrorists attack areas with the lowest human life loss? It's just not smart to do that.Oh really? I live 50 miles away from Nuclear 1, a nuclear power plant in Russellville, Arkansas. The whole eastern seaboard over to the mississippi is connected to the same power grid, and the nuclear plant serves that grid. If terrorists were to hit the plant, it would reduce the power supplied to that grid. If its a particularly hot day in New York, Chicago, Boston, etc.. say bye bye to power. Not to mention if there's an Easterly wind that day I can kiss my !@#$%^&* goodbye, if there isn't I can kiss it goodbye about 48 hours later. About 200 miles away, outside of Pine Bluff, Arkansas is one of the countries largest Nuclear/Biological weapon stockpiles. I don't suppose that would really be a target of interest though, compaired to New York, right? Try getting informed before you spew garbage out of your mouth. Yes, learjett, only extremist Iraqis are attacking our troops, but the ranks of them is constantly increasing. Why do you think so many of them are suicide bombers and yet theres attacks every day. Where do you think these people come from. Eventually they would all be gone if there was not more of them being created all the time by this administration's actions. The only comment I have here is the majority of attacks in Iraq are not from suicide bombers, they are from roadside bombs/IED's. While it takes alot of people to produce these en-masse (I'd assume), it does not take a huge army to arm them and set them along side the road and wait for an American to drive by. The problem is, when they were starting the nuclear program, we were powerless to even try to stop them because most of our troops were stuck in Iraq for a war that will go out in the history books as just another war we fought to oppress other nations. HuH? You call 160k troops "most". Sorry, again do your research before you spew garbage. Opress other nations? Find a stick and beat that liberal back inside of you, you were posting semi-intelligently before that comment.
AstroProdigy Posted August 13, 2005 Author Report Posted August 13, 2005 Ok. I have not posted in a few days so here I go. Learn your World War II history better before you make comments that seem logical, but are not what the situation was at the time. Did you stop to think that Hitler had his troops fighting on other fronts? He did not have all his soldiers around the concentration camps. Air strikes coulda haqve dislodged the concentration camps near the end of the war. The Nazis were in a rush to kill all the people they could when they saw they were losing the war. As for we did not really know where Osama Bin Laden was, we could have cut off all the main exits there and probably would have caught Bin Laden running away, at which point we could have called air support to go and blow them into oblivion. Now of course you cannot prove that it was a conspiracy, but at the very le!@#$%^&*t it proves a blunder. For your comment of Kim Jong II, it looks like you are keeping your ears closed to the real argument. Why did we attack Iraq when there were other countries that were oppressing there people just as much, if not more, and were a real threat to the United States. Are you trying to say that Kim Jong II is a legitimate dictator and North Korea is just fine with him in control? They did not try to throw the UN "the bird," they simply kicked out UN observers so they could build their weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction. You are contradicting your whole argument with this. We should use preemption to take down dictators who we claim are a threat, but we should try to reason to the most psychotic dictators? Well that makes a lot of sense . At this point in the game only the extreme liberal left and the mis-informed still use the oil arguement for the war. Judging from the content of your posts I really don't want to put you in the category, but then reading you referencing Farenheight 9-11 as a "do!@#$%^&*entary", and citing it forces me to put you there. Are you !@#$%^&*ing serious? Moore has got to be the biggest crackjob the worlds ever seen, he's a self serving liberal maniac who heavily edited "footage" to fit his political agenda.Are you serious with this? It could also be said that only the extreme conservative right and the mi-informed still believe we were justified to go to war with Iraq and we handled it well. I am not taking Moore's do!@#$%^&*entary literally. I have said it already that he has an agenda and he does want to make the administration look bad, but it is still videos. It is not the same thing writing something as showing video of something. Yes, the place you discuss is a high risk area, but how dare you say that the Tri-state area does not have risk. We have nuclear plants there too. If they go off, there are 8 million people in New York City alone. If you think about the areas around it, a good 20 million peoples' lives would be at risk as well as pretty much completely anihallating the US economy and pretty much annihalating the world economy too. Who knows what will happen then? Nuclear War maybe? HuH? You call 160k troops "most". Sorry, again do your research before you spew garbage. Opress other nations? Find a stick and beat that liberal back inside of you, you were posting semi-intelligently before that comment. Are you kidding me? Most of our troops were either in Iraq or Afghanistan, or they were going to be in the next rotation. You are the one spewing Conservative propaganda that you probably saw on FOX 5. If you honestly believe that the United States has been taking a holy mission throughout its history, you seriously have a problem because you do not know what you are talking about. Learn to look at all the facts rather than !@#$%^&*uming that whatever conservatives tell you are holy and I am surprised you have not said that God is George Bush's friend and anyone who does not support the administration is going to !@#$%^&*. Everyone before you has been posting some intelligent comments and making good arguments. Before you posted, we were having an intelligent discussion. You just come in here and post your Republican sound bytes and p!@#$%^&* them off as facts. Most of the stuff you posted here was either put into your brain conservative propaganda or you used facts and twisted them around so that they would support your agenda.
AstroProdigy Posted August 13, 2005 Author Report Posted August 13, 2005 This is my non flaming post to the logical comments of everyone else. Yes, we are caught in a catch-22 situation . To pull out of Iraq before there is a stable government would be just as foolish as saying "Mission Accomplished" when we toppled Saddam's regime. That small town idea is very interesting. It does make a lot of sense using anhydrous ammonia as an attack to try to destroy feelings Americans have of safety. However, there are larger threats that we have to worry about. Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons that are still missing after the fall of the Soviet Union. If a nuclear weapon was used, the effect on a small town would be that it would completely obliterate the town killing everyone in it. Thats about 2000 deaths. An attack on Chicago with a nuclear weapon would kill most of the people in the city. That is about 4 million deaths, which is 2/3 of the city i believe. We should, however, consider the fact that terrorists can attack us in many ways. Thank you for bringing this information to my attention. Are you sure that a Brit or Australian or Chinese or Greek or Turkish tourist would not be treated the same way? I never said they treat our tourists badly, lol. Yes they do not like other groups either. I would think people of a certain country would not like every other country, of course. That is world politics at work.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 17, 2005 Report Posted August 17, 2005 I really, really hate to get into arguements with delusional posters who do nothing but seek venues full of like minded people so they can find others to support their delusions, but here it goes. Strap on your seat belts children.*Edit* I truely attempted to keep my composure through this post, but it became such a pain in the !@#$%^&* that I said !@#$%^&* it. Ok. I have not posted in a few days so here I go. Learn your World War II history better before you make comments that seem logical, but are not what the situation was at the time. Did you stop to think that Hitler had his troops fighting on other fronts? He did not have all his soldiers around the concentration camps. Air strikes coulda haqve dislodged the concentration camps near the end of the war. The Nazis were in a rush to kill all the people they could when they saw they were losing the war.WTF are you talking about!? When the United States entered the war, Hitler wasn't fighting "other fronts", there was no "other front", the only front was on the eastern front against Russia. The "Other Front" came when we, the brits, and the canadians landed on the beaches of France. Guess what sparky, Hitler was waiting for them. Are you really such a !@#$%^&*ing idiot that you tell ME to learn my history? I guess the !@#$%^&* you just got finished learning in 10'th grade world history makes you feel like your a historian, but perhaps you should have paid alittle better attention. Incase you are curious, go read about Operation SeaLion to learn about the begining of the US involvement in World War 2, its apparent you're either stupid or grossly mis-informed. Air-Strikes!? ROFL, Right, Carpet bomb the concentration camps, that will get rid of the Nazi's so we can save the remains of the Jews that are there!! Dude, you are delusional. The end of the war isn't in the discussion, you criticized the World War 2 war plan because it didn't liberate the camps first, I pointed out what a !@#$%^&*ing stupid statement that was. For your comment of Kim Jong II, it looks like you are keeping your ears closed to the real argument. Why did we attack Iraq when there were other countries that were oppressing there people just as much, if not more, and were a real threat to the United States. Are you trying to say that Kim Jong II is a legitimate dictator and North Korea is just fine with him in control? They did not try to throw the UN "the bird," they simply kicked out UN observers so they could build their weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction. It was in refence to the decade of broken agreements that Saddam has commited. Ever since the first Gulf War ended, Saddam has had certain restrictions on him that he has broken and the UN never enforced. A decade later, somethings being done about them. Kim Jongs situation is correctly being delt with, with negotation. When the time comes that its apparent that negotiations wont work with him, as it was apparent with Saddam, then actions should be taken. From now on read what I say, If I want you to put words in my mouth I'll !@#$%^&*ing inform you, until then stick to quotes sparkey. You are contradicting your whole argument with this. We should use preemption to take down dictators who we claim are a threat, but we should try to reason to the most psychotic dictators? Well that makes a lot of sense .If you would have taken the time to comprehend what I was saying, I was simply saying let negotations try and work, and if the do not (as in Saddams Case), then something should be done. I know reading comprehension is something that todays public schools don't teach, perhaps you should spend some of your free time learning the skill, its important. Are you serious with this? It could also be said that only the extreme conservative right and the mi-informed still believe we were justified to go to war with Iraq and we handled it well. You're god !@#$%^&* right I'm serious about what I said. You can !@#$%^&*ing say whatever you want, however I've never said the war was justified and I have never said we handled it well. Nice try I am not taking Moore's do!@#$%^&*entary literally. I have said it already that he has an agenda and he does want to make the administration look bad, but it is still videos. It is not the same thing writing something as showing video of something.What do you mean its not the same thing? Videos are even more relaxed standard wise than print is. You can edit videos to portray anything you want, and for you to say you realize that he has an agenda, but then try and legitimize his agenda by saying he put it down on film is the ONLY thing in this thread that is contradictory. I noticed you used the word above, use this situation as reference so next time you can use the word in the correct context. Yes, the place you discuss is a high risk area, but how dare you say that the Tri-state area does not have risk. We have nuclear plants there too. If they go off, there are 8 million people in New York City alone. If you think about the areas around it, a good 20 million peoples' lives would be at risk as well as pretty much completely anihallating the US economy and pretty much annihalating the world economy too. Who knows what will happen then? Nuclear War maybe? I never !@#$%^&*ing said the "tri-state" area does not have risk, you were the one that claimed we were low risk, and eluded to the fact that we shouldn't care because we were so far away from the terrorist attacks that we should have nothing to worry about. I simply gave you the facts to make you realize next time before you open your big !@#$%^&*ing mouth to stop and realize what you're saying. For you to be as pompous enough to try and put an importance factor based on the number of lives that could be potentially lost is appauling. Are you kidding me? Most of our troops were either in Iraq or Afghanistan, or they were going to be in the next rotation. You are the one spewing Conservative propaganda that you probably saw on FOX 5.Total Armed Forces, census 2000 Read it, 1,366,000 troops in the armed services as of 2000. Are you honestly trying to !@#$%^&*ing attack me as a Conservative propagandist by saying that 160,000 isn't "most" of our troops? You need to remove your !@#$%^&*ing head from your !@#$%^&* and actually go out and figure out the facts before you post. Perhaps you are the one guilty of getting YOUR information from a short cited source. Yes, I !@#$%^&*ing watch Fox News, and watch the Orielly Factor every day, and frankly this post proves that I'm exponentially more informed than you are. Seriously, how could you be so !@#$%^&*ing lost in your own lies that you could believe that the United States of America only has 160,000 troops. If you honestly believe that the United States has been taking a holy mission throughout its history, you seriously have a problem because you do not know what you are talking about. Learn to look at all the facts rather than !@#$%^&*uming that whatever conservatives tell you are holy and I am surprised you have not said that God is George Bush's friend and anyone who does not support the administration is going to !@#$%^&*. Again, If I want you to put words in my mouth i'll give you permission to. I've never claimed the United States was part of a holy war. The only "fact" in this conversation is you are grossly ignorant of the "facts" you claim to know. I truely suggest you become more learned before attempting to get in a discussion over the Internet again. "I am suprised you have not said that God...." If this line doesn't !@#$%^&*ing PROVES that you are a mis-informed liberal biggot, I'm not sure what does. Everyone before you has been posting some intelligent comments and making good arguments. Before you posted, we were having an intelligent discussion. You just come in here and post your Republican sound bytes and p!@#$%^&* them off as facts. Most of the stuff you posted here was either put into your brain conservative propaganda or you used facts and twisted them around so that they would support your agenda. ROFLMFAO, As what i've seen im the only person in this conversation TO back my arguement up with facts. The only thing you've cited is Micheal Moore. Go out and become actually acquire knowledge on your own before you come on here again. I have no problem with opposing opinions. I do have problems with !@#$%^&*bags like you that do nothing but regurgitate democraticunderground.com and Micheal Moore F 9-11 like its gospel without researching on your own. The very fact that you resorted to attacking me personally, instead of attacking my opinions just proves what kind of a !@#$%^&*bag you truely are. Tactics like that may work in your little circle-jerk forums where all you and the trash you hang out with sit around, stroke each-others ASSS and swap conspiracy theories, but when you try and throw them at a semi-intelligent person that actually researches the issues, and attempts to form their own opinion on matters, it goes down quicker than a fifty cent hooker. You sir are no worse that the "Republican Propogandist" you accuse me of being, and the fact that you cannot, and likely will not, see that is truely !@#$%^&*ing pathetic.
AstroProdigy Posted August 17, 2005 Author Report Posted August 17, 2005 Sigh. You took my comment totally out of context on World War II. I said "The Nazis were in a rush to kill all the people they could when they saw they were losing the war." I did not say the Nazis were in a rush to kill people when they were winning the war. If your just going to do this taking out of conetext play you should work for Karl Rove. You do not know what was going on to think that there were a million prisoners in each of the main killing camps at one time. Please don't put incorrect information as your "proof". when you do not understand how things work do not act like you do. The end of the War isn't your discussion because you know that if you turn it into a different discussion you won't look like an !@#$%^&*. It was in refence to the decade of broken agreements that Saddam has commited. Ever since the first Gulf War ended, Saddam has had certain restrictions on him that he has broken and the UN never enforced. A decade later, somethings being done about them. Kim Jongs situation is correctly being delt with, with negotation. When the time comes that its apparent that negotiations wont work with him, as it was apparent with Saddam, then actions should be taken.Is this what you are going to do; spew out what the administration is telling you? If Saddam Hussein had broken restrictions, what were they? Did he actually "have" weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction even though we have found no evidence of this? If you agree then you really are a die hard ignorant. You forgot that Kim Jong is a psychopath. Negotiations are doing nothing to stop his nuclear program. If anything they are buying him time to make as many nuclear weapons as he can. I never !@#$%^&*ing said the "tri-state" area does not have risk, you were the one that claimed we were low risk, and eluded to the fact that we shouldn't care because we were so far away from the terrorist attacks that we should have nothing to worry about. I simply gave you the facts to make you realize next time before you open your big !@#$%^&*ing mouth to stop and realize what you're saying. For you to be as pompous enough to try and put an importance factor based on the number of lives that could be potentially lost is appauling. Now here you go again putting your own spin. I did not elude to the fact that we shouldn't care about the lower risk areas, I eluded to the fact that a high risk area should justly have much more protection than a low risk area. We should be trying to prevent terrorism based on the probability to be the most effective. We should get into the mind of a terrorist not play a divided political game at home giving the terrorists a better chance of succeeding. If you would have taken the time to comprehend what I was saying, I was simply saying let negotations try and work, and if the do not (as in Saddams Case), then something should be done.We only !@#$%^&*umed that negotiations did not work. In fact, they did. Saddam did not have any weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and was not producing any. North Korea, on the other hand, is giving us the run around and using the time to produce more weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction. You're god !@#$%^&* right I'm serious about what I said. You can !@#$%^&*ing say whatever you want, however I've never said the war was justified and I have never said we handled it well. Wow. You have been trying to justify the Iraq War throughout your posts. Did you forget "I was simply saying let negotations try and work, and if the do not (as in Saddams Case), then something should be done." I mean come on; if you are going to lie you should make sure there is no proof glaring you in the face that you are lying. Learn from our administration. Stop choosing half of what I say. I said Iraq AND Afghanistan. Not to mention we have troops in a number of other countries to help protect them from terrorism. We also cannot have no troops in the United States, that would be extremely foolish. Stop taking things out of context or else I will say you are very good on putting your own "spin" on the truth. I've never claimed the United States was part of a holy war. I said IF YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE. I never said YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE. If you want to not look at what I am actually writing, then do not comment on it. As for that God comment, it is called a flame. You have been doing it to me throughout your posts. I do not need sources to oppose your posts, because there is no basis to most of it. You actually believe you form your own opinions? All you have been doing in your posts is insulting me, spewing out what the administration tells you, and contradicting yourself.
MonteZuma Posted August 17, 2005 Report Posted August 17, 2005 Strap on your seat belts children.Yeee HAW! It was in refence to the decade of broken agreements that Saddam has commited. Ever since the first Gulf War ended, Saddam has had certain restrictions on him that he has broken and the UN never enforced. A decade later, somethings being done about them. Kim Jongs situation is correctly being delt with, with negotation. When the time comes that its apparent that negotiations wont work with him, as it was apparent with Saddam, then actions should be taken.The difference between N Korea and Iraq is China. I'd argue that the N Korean people are worse off under their communist regime than the Iraqi people were under Saddam's regime, so the moral imperative for intervention is greater than for Iraq. But I think the political imperative for military intervention is absent, because any action could be very destabilising. If we want to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, I think the international community should avoid military conflict over N Korea indefinitely. The only issue that I have is that I think it would be very dangerous if N Korea built up a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. The best way to stop that is through dialogue and negotiation, but I don't think force should be ruled out altogether. I think the key to this is engaging with China. Whatever their human rights record, if we are going to resolve this 'peacefully', China needs to play a big role. I know reading comprehension is something that todays public schools don't teach, perhaps you should spend some of your free time learning the skill, its important.Its OT, but I think they do teach comprehension. What they don't teach very well is spelling.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 17, 2005 Report Posted August 17, 2005 Sigh. You took my comment totally out of context on World War II. I said "The Nazis were in a rush to kill all the people they could when they saw they were losing the war." I did not say the Nazis were in a rush to kill people when they were winning the war. If your just going to do this taking out of conetext play you should work for Karl Rove.Seriously dude, what makes you even more pathetic is you can actually find all of the information you want on the internet quite easily. Concentration Camps A quote from the website above. Construction on Auschwitz-Birkenau began in October, 1941 and was completed in March, 1942 although one provisional gas chamber, in a converted farmhouse, went into operation in January 1941. When these experiments proved inadequate, four large Krema, each containing a disrobing area, a gas chamber and crematorium were constructed between March and June, 1943. The crematories and gas chamber equipments, constructed by Hoch und Tiefbau AG Kattowitz, were delivered by the Erfurt firm J.A. Topf & sons. At it's peak, more than 20.000 people could be murdered and their bodies burned in a single day. In fact, the single day highest output was 24,000. During peak operation from March, 1942 until November, 1944, trains arrived almost daily with transports of Jews from all over occupied Europe. In Auschwitz, which is easily one of the most deadly and efficient concentration camp that the Nazi's used to execute the Jewish Solution did most of its killing BEFORE the Unitd States even entered the war. So in fact, the Nazi's were in a rush to kill people while they were winning the war. When the Nazi's began losing is when the death output curbed downward. Are you seriously this !@#$%^&*ing ignorant? Do you think I don't check the facts myself? Dude, once again, before you open your mouth !@#$%^&*ing check your facts, you've been wrong on all of them. If researching the facts and being right puts me on Karl Rove's team, then !@#$%^&*ing sign my !@#$%^&* up. You do not know what was going on to think that there were a million prisoners in each of the main killing camps at one time. Please don't put incorrect information as your "proof". when you do not understand how things work do not act like you do.ROFL, I hear crow is nice with alittle ketchup and mus!@#$%^&*. You'll have to remove your foot from your mouth before putting a nice heaping s!@#$%^&*ful in, of course. Oh, and by the way, considering 6 million jews were exterminated over roughly 4 years that the camps were running, I highly doubt the "camps" had a combined 1,000,000 in them at any given time. Is this what you are going to do; spew out what the administration is telling you? If Saddam Hussein had broken restrictions, what were they? Did he actually "have" weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction even though we have found no evidence of this? If you agree then you really are a die hard ignorant. UN Security Councel Resolutions UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991 # Iraq must declare fully its weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction programs. # Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991 # "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security." # Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population. # Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of !@#$%^&*istance. After the first gulf war, these were among the resolutions passed as part of the cease fire. I know you've never read any of the resolutions, because if you had you would realize my arguement isn't about WMD's its about the plethora of other resolutions that Saddam said "!@#$%^&* you" to the UN over. UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002 * Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons. * Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and do!@#$%^&*ents. * States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. 11 !@#$%^&*ing years later, we're telling Saddam the SAME THINGS WE TOLD HIM TO DO in 1991. This is the "decade of throwing the bird" that I described. I understand you didn't realize that a decade equals 10 years, hopefully thats cleared up for you. Again, !@#$%^&*ing go out and do your research before you come on the forum and spew !@#$%^&* out of your mouth in a half vained attempt to show that you are possibly the most brainwashed liberal !@#$%^&*bag i've ever met over the internet. Not only are you ignorant, but you have such delusions of granduer that you actually believe you're smarter than me. Thats extremely laughable. We only !@#$%^&*umed that negotiations did not work. In fact, they did. Saddam did not have any weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and was not producing any. North Korea, on the other hand, is giving us the run around and using the time to produce more weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction.Oh really? Go !@#$%^&*ing read the resolutions sparkey. !@#$%^&* like this proves that you're the one buying into propoganda, not me. Wow. You have been trying to justify the Iraq War throughout your posts. Did you forget "I was simply saying let negotations try and work, and if the do not (as in Saddams Case), then something should be done." I mean come on; if you are going to lie you should make sure there is no proof glaring you in the face that you are lying. Learn from our administration. Proofs in the pudding cinderella, as to which i've provided and you've only throw around half-!@#$%^&*ed insults. "Something should be done" and "Go to war without any ally support" are two completely different things. Again, I'll !@#$%^&*ing tell you if I support the war or not if I please, until then stick to quotes. Stop choosing half of what I say. I said Iraq AND Afghanistan. Not to mention we have troops in a number of other countries to help protect them from terrorism. We also cannot have no troops in the United States, that would be extremely foolish. Stop taking things out of context or else I will say you are very good on putting your own "spin" on the truth.OOOOOOHH, Iraq AND Afghanistan. Sorry, I guess that means that 160,000 troops is "most" of our 1.3 million. Were you born thick-skulled and dim-witted or did you have to work at it? I really like your supporting arguement.. You were the dip!@#$%^&* that said most of our troops were in Iraq and Afghanistan. When I said you're a dip!@#$%^&*, you didn't have anything to provide otherwise. Sorry Dip!@#$%^&*, 160,000 will never be "most" of our troops, any way you slice it. I do not need sources to oppose your posts, because there is no basis to most of it. You actually believe you form your own opinions? All you have been doing in your posts is insulting me, spewing out what the administration tells you, and contradicting yourself. ROFLMFAO. Dude, truely delusional people discount facts that are provided them. I've done all the !@#$%^&*ing groundwork for you and provided non-biased websites that provide nothing but factual information. I realize that your opinion of a factual website is one filled with political cartoons and half-witted insults, but the line has to be drawn someplace. Before you reply to this, please, PLEASE, use your brain. If I have to reply to pure and utter nonsense from you again you'll win by default, I refuse to discuss things with someone who has nothing to bring to the table. If I have to teach you anymore I'll be forced to start charging. Its OT, but I think they do teach comprehension. What they don't teach very well is spelling.I'd argue that the N Korean people are worse off under their communist regime than the Iraqi people were under Saddam's regime, so the moral imperative for intervention is greater than for Iraq. But I think the political imperative for military intervention is absent, because any action could be very destabilising. Reading and comprehending peoples ideas are much more important =) Oh and BTW, the second quote is a run-on-sentence, not to mention the second sentence starting with a preposition. Tisk, Tisk.
MonteZuma Posted August 18, 2005 Report Posted August 18, 2005 Its OT, but I think they do teach comprehension. What they don't teach very well is spelling....and grammar I'd argue that the N Korean people are worse off under their communist regime than the Iraqi people were under Saddam's regime, so the moral imperative for intervention is greater than for Iraq. But I think the political imperative for military intervention is absent, because any action could be very destabilising. Reading and comprehending peoples ideas are much more important =)Agreed. Oh and BTW, the second quote is a run-on-sentence, not to mention the second sentence starting with a preposition. Tisk, Tisk.I'm not sure which sentence you mean, but is it bad to start a sentence with a preposition? Grammar is confusing.
LearJett+ Posted August 18, 2005 Report Posted August 18, 2005 I agree with Worthless on everything again... except one thing. (Depending on which sentence you were talking about)'But' or 'What' are not prepositions. 'But' is a conjunction, and I'm not quite sure what 'what' is. I know it's not a preposition, however
Dr.Worthless Posted August 18, 2005 Report Posted August 18, 2005 Prepositions Way back in the day when I was in fourth grade, we were taught an english system called "Shirley English" It was a learning system that focused around repe!@#$%^&*ion and nifty little jingles to help you learn. For some odd reason I still remember the preposition jingle. The "B" category Preposition, preposition starting with a B BeforeBehindBelowBeneathBesideBetweenBeyondButBy The above link lists but as a preposition also.
MonteZuma Posted August 18, 2005 Report Posted August 18, 2005 Yeah. My vote is that 'But' is a conjunction. The way I understand it in formal English it is ok to start a sentence with a preposition. At one time, it was not ok to start a sentence with a conjunction. But I think English is becoming less formal and it is becoming ok. Woohoo....^ The paragraph contains a run-on sentence, a sentence that starts with a preposition....and a sentence that starts with a conjunction! Who knew that English could be so much fun?!
LearJett+ Posted August 18, 2005 Report Posted August 18, 2005 Hmph, I don't believe that list . The word 'but' doesn't denote where anything is - does it? I thought 'but' and 'and' were the two main conjunctions, heh
AstroProdigy Posted August 18, 2005 Author Report Posted August 18, 2005 Sigh. There is really no poin in arguing with you anymore Worthless. This would just go on and on. Frankly, I do not appreciate the wide array of personal attacks and curses that you fill your posts with. It makes you look very childish. You took a regular thread and broke it down into a flaming thread. For shame.
LearJett+ Posted August 18, 2005 Report Posted August 18, 2005 I thought it made him sound more intelligent. He wasn't flaming - he was breaking down what you said and giving you facts why you were wrong.
AstroProdigy Posted August 18, 2005 Author Report Posted August 18, 2005 Yes, he was flaming. The insults “dip!@#$%^&*,†“stupid,†“pompous,†“mis-informed liberal biggot,†“grossly ignorant,†“!@#$%^&*ing pathetic,†“!@#$%^&*bag,†“!@#$%^&*ing ignorant,†“brainwashed liberal !@#$%^&*bag,†“thick-skulled,†“dim-witted,†“bonehead,†“!@#$%^&*bag†were used by him. Frankly, now I am afraid to post my opinion anywhere because I know he will be there to flame me. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, but I do mind people constantly cursing at me. This guy definitely minds people disagreeing with him because this is the way he reacts. He even says that I attacked HIM personally and was throwing half !@#$%^&*ed insults at HIM. That’s funny.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 18, 2005 Report Posted August 18, 2005 If cussing offends you astro, my sincerest appologies. I take it personally insulting when a liberal tries to label me something i'm not, and does so by using statements that have no factual basis. The situation was hightened by your complete lack of even wanting to find out the facts. Its all available out there on the internet from credible sources, seek and you will find. PS. Reliable sources aren't filled with political cartoons.
MonteZuma Posted August 18, 2005 Report Posted August 18, 2005 Yes, he was flaming. The insults “dip!@#$%^&*,†“stupid,†“pompous,†“mis-informed liberal biggot,†“grossly ignorant,†“!@#$%^&*ing pathetic,†“!@#$%^&*bag,†“!@#$%^&*ing ignorant,†“brainwashed liberal !@#$%^&*bag,†“thick-skulled,†“dim-witted,†“bonehead,†“!@#$%^&*bag†were used by him. Frankly, now I am afraid to post my opinion anywhere because I know he will be there to flame me. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, but I do mind people constantly cursing at me. This guy definitely minds people disagreeing with him because this is the way he reacts. He even says that I attacked HIM personally and was throwing half !@#$%^&*ed insults at HIM. That’s funny.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Try not to let it get to you Astro. In the end, its all just bits and bytes and phosphorescent flashes on your monitor. These forums will become much less enjoyable if you take stuff personally. The forums became much more interesting because of you and the other posters. Keep it up!
LearJett+ Posted August 19, 2005 Report Posted August 19, 2005 you should work for Karl Rovewhen you do not understand how things work do not act like you do. that if you turn it into a different discussion you won't look like an !@#$%^&*. Hm I'm sure those comments were necessary. This is a case where someone got owned by cold hard facts so now they're trying to pull out by calling a foul.
Ender 12 Posted August 19, 2005 Report Posted August 19, 2005 I like how even you would consider being linked to President Bush's Senior Advisor an insult.
LearJett+ Posted August 19, 2005 Report Posted August 19, 2005 I like how even you would consider being linked to President Bush's Senior Advisor an insult.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Me or him? I included that because I knew that it was meant as an insult.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 19, 2005 Report Posted August 19, 2005 Karl Rove was hired to do a job, and he did it !@#$%^&* well. That being said, I don't like being accused of being a propogandist, brainwashed, etc etc.
MonteZuma Posted August 19, 2005 Report Posted August 19, 2005 I think you made some good points Dr....and I understand where you are coming from. But you were a little harsh.... :/
Recommended Posts