No, THIS is what going crazy must feel like.

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 18:21
VIEWED: 13059
PAGE 11 of 15

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Friday, February 2, 2007 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
Read my statements over a few times in context, I'm sure you'll get it eventually. I can help you if you like, or you can, you know, continue to troll for an argument and oh so politely personally attack anyone you disagree with.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So now you’re changing your story? Good. Because you’re original one stunk.

Option two for you then.

My story hasn't changed, you're inabillity to understand it is not my problem

. Oh your attempt to paint me as this and that failed so you're changing your story? I see, Good because your last one made no sense.

Quote:
Terrorists have always found a way of getting money, and a great deal of it comes in the form of seemingly legitimate charities in the wealthy Western World, but to blanketly criticize charitable donations as supporting terrorism is a mistake, at best.

Your assertion, never mine.

Edit: To change some things.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, February 3, 2007 1:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap,

"All that was said is that we should act BEFORE there are mushroom clouds."

The UN WAS acting - and it was within a few weeks of finding a WMD-free Iraq. Under those conditions, why did the US invade?

As to Iraq and 9/11 - please cite some evidence.

But you still didn't answer my question. It's like you have no existence, no thoughts, no responses beyond talking points. I'd say you were a Rovian wet-dream, made corporeal. Or, more accurately, incorporated.

So, why do you persist in dumping the bs so completely and consistently? How'd you get that way?

You're beyond delusional. The U.N. said Iraq had to comply, Iraq did NOT comply.
As for Iraq and 9/11, there's nothing more to say.I've already replied to everything you asked. You asking it over and over again does not negate my reply. Sorry.

How is it you think that Democrats could be so gun ho for taking out Iraq and its WMD in '98, '00 and even up 'till '02 , and then *magically * change their opinions 2 years later ? WTF ? All the evidnece was the same, whehter it was Clinton or Bush in the W.H, but then for some reason the Dems started getting cold feet....or rather saw a political shift, so they changed their opinions. They fucking sold out the security of this country for PURE POLITICAL POWER! END OF STORY.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

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

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, February 3, 2007 6:31 AM

Aparently Cit doesn't want to respond to my post after seeing one thing he didn't agree with. Seeing how that is the case and this thread is pretty much reduced to shit flinging anyhow, I think I'm going to make my exit.

My last post was to the smartass oldenglanddry.

You go ahead and sign that sheet and come on over. A word of advice to you though. If you try coming into my house and telling me I'm going to do things your way, you better wear a helmet and some serious body armor.

You better do it soon though, because if our politicians keep selling us out to the East, we're already going to have a civil war over here by the time your boat pulls up on the shore. You're more than welcome to come on over and find yourself in the crossfire though.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 3, 2007 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Aparently Cit doesn't want to respond to my post after seeing one thing he didn't agree with.

Actually I did reply, my reply rubbished the idea that if America wanted vengence it would have just obliterated the Middle East with Nuclear weapons, which was the single unifying sentiment that you pinned all assumptions of your post on. You can either try again or you can troll for an argument...

Oh that's what you did, never mind

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 3, 2007 5:10 PM

Quote:
You're beyond delusional. The U.N. said Iraq had to comply, Iraq did NOT comply.

Can you stop with the name-calling, please? (That goes for everyone.) All it does is make people mad and creates more heat than light.

Okay, 'rap, the UN said that Iraq had to comply. Comply with what? Off the top of my head, there were several important things Iraq had to do after 1991:

1) Withdraw from Kuwait- Done

2) Pay reparations- in process.

Quote:
So far,
Iraq has paid $18 billion in compensation, with the bulk going to Kuwait. The cash came from oil revenues under the United Nations' oil-for-food program. The original cut was 30 percent, reduced then to 25 percent, but after the American occupation the Security Council reduced the amount to 5 percent of oil revenues

www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FA30Ak01.html

3) Destroy weapons of mass destruction- Done, according to all evidence collected by UNMOVIC and USA inspections

4) Destroy missiles with prohibited range- Done

4) Provide evidence that WMD were destroyed- Not done.

What wqas the UN doing about Iraq's foot-dragging on the WMD issue? Nothing?

No. Iraq was under an embargo, and also had portions of its territory under no-fly restrictions- enforced by USA. Saddam also finally agreed to intrusive inspections that included the Presidential Palaces and other previously off-limits areas, and those inspections were within a month or two of being concluded.

So, why did George Bush suddenly ramp up the rhetoric? The UN was handling the issue- with our help- and Iraq posed absolutely no imminent threat to us. The whole notion that USA invasion was somehow required to "enforce the UN resolutions" in some magnanimous fashion is false. You have not shown that is was NECESSARY to invade Iraq, and I don't think you can, because other means to force compliance were in place. If you can show that it was NECESSARY to invade Iraq, please do so.

Quote:
As for Iraq and 9/11, there's nothing more to say. I've already replied to everything you asked. You asking it over and over again does not negate my reply. Sorry.

There was no connection between Iraq and 9-11, and actually no conneciton bewteen Iraq and al Qaida, but Bush made certain that he metioned 9-11 each time he talked about Iraq. And the info that he fed the Senators was cooked up. Can you show that Bush took pains to make NO connection between Iraq and 9-11? No, you can't.

Quote:
How is it you think that Democrats could be so gun ho for taking out Iraq and its WMD in '98, '00 and even up 'till '02 , and then *magically * change their opinions 2 years later ? WTF ? All the evidnece was the same, whehter it was Clinton or Bush in the W.H, but then for some reason the Dems started getting cold feet....or rather saw a political shift, so they changed their opinions. They fucking sold out the security of this country for PURE POLITICAL POWER! END OF STORY.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please elucidate.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

OLDENGLANDDRY

Saturday, February 3, 2007 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

My last post was to the smartass oldenglanddry.

You go ahead and sign that sheet and come on over. A word of advice to you though. If you try coming into my house and telling me I'm going to do things your way, you better wear a helmet and some serious body armor.

Spoken like a true 'Merican; from three thousand miles away.

If I came into your house I would'nt wear serious body armour. I would go for the slightly silly type, possibly with a trick carnation on it that squirted water at you.

Now stop looking at my "smart Ass", whatever that means, you degenerate colonial.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, February 3, 2007 11:25 PM

SigNMy - Check out Resolution 1441. It's clear from that that Iraq had and was failing to abide by the rules. I really do hate this revisionist history lesson we've allowed to be promoted.

Quote:
There was no connection between Iraq and 9-11, and actually no conneciton bewteen Iraq and al Qaida, but Bush made certain that he metioned 9-11 each time he talked about Iraq. And the info that he fed the Senators was cooked up. Can you show that Bush took pains to make NO connection between Iraq and 9-11? No, you can't.

We never knew there was any direct ties between Iraq and al Qaeda w/ respect to 9-11-01. That we don't KNOW doesn't mean there wasn't any. But that was NEVER the reason for going into Iraq. See above UN Resolution, 1441.

How do you KNOW the intel fed to the Senators was 'cooked' ? There's nothing what so ever to suggest that's the case. All the reports and studies debunk your claims.

So what if Bush mentioned 9/11 with Iraq ? Iraq definatly had ties to terrorist groups, had sent $$ to the families of suicide bombers, had HARBORED terrorists, had attempted to murder a US President, it's only prudent that both be mentioned w/ respect to national security.

You have no idea about the flip flops of Democrats ? I've posted these quotes before, as have many others. For your benefit, here are a few more....

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html

There are the quotes , the very words by so many of the leaders of the Left, who have turned 180 degrees and now are playing politics by saying they were mislead ( they weren't ) and are acting like they never said these things. They're not leading, they're reacting to political focus groups and a carefully staged barrage of media distortion to the American public.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

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

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 4, 2007 12:58 AM

Shake that smart ass baby..... oooohhhh so sexy!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 4, 2007 4:25 AM

Quote:
SigNMy - Check out Resolution 1441. It's clear from that that Iraq had and was failing to abide by the rules. I really do hate this revisionist history lesson we've allowed to be promoted.

Yeah, I read Resolution 1441 and it's like I said:

Quote:
1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.

2) That 1441, and its deadline, represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.

3) That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations".

So, like I said... they withdrew from Kuwait, they were in the process of paying reparations, they did destroy their WMD and missiles, but they didn't report the destruction. And your point is...? They were in material breach of 1441. But what to DO about it?

UN was responding to the situation and UNMOVIC was inspecting Iraq for the missing WMD (the WMD that had been detroyed but not accounted for). You haven't shown that invading Iraq was necessary. I say it wasn't. And your counterargument would be....? Do you have one to show that it really WAS necessary?

Quote:
We never knew there was any direct ties between Iraq and al Qaeda w/ respect to 9-11-01. That we don't KNOW doesn't mean there wasn't any. But that was NEVER the reason for going into Iraq. See above UN Resolution, 1441.

Before the war, 85% of American were convinced that Saddam was responsible for 9-11. Why do you suppose that was? Did it happen by accident?

But let's set that aside for the moment. Was it really necessary to invade?

The same goes for the Democratic statements. Let's assume that many of them believed that Saddam had WMD, or wanted WMD. Again- what do do about it?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 4, 2007 6:06 AM

Quote:
Before the war, 85% of American were convinced that Saddam was responsible for 9-11. Why do you suppose that was? Did it happen by accident?

Where the HELL did you get that information? I call B.S.! A full YEAR before we went to Iraq, we were invading Afghanistan. But even IF Americans were convinced of that nonsense, it doesn't mean that the Bush Administration was responsible for those beliefs. Hell, I wasn't of that mind set, and I'd been following this all along.

Quote:
But let's set that aside for the moment. Was it really necessary to invade?

Finally, a legitimate issue! I can see both sides to this issue, and I could even accept 'some' view points which did not advocate for war.

Quote:
The same goes for the Democratic statements. Let's assume that many of them believed that Saddam had WMD, or wanted WMD. Again- what do do about it?

Some Dems talked a big game, but seems now that few think it was all that big an security issue. The fact is, we spent 8 yrs not doing much of anything , except enforcing the no fly zones, attacking a time or two with cruise missles......

Should we have ? kinda late to be asking that now, isn't it

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

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

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE