More Bad News for Kerry

[Infohawk]

Your sig is interesting.

Originally posted by: nutxo

Keep telling yourself that

:beer:

Now what is Kerry gonna cry about though???

------------------------------

Ever notice how the people who are most insulting on the internet are the biggest pu**ies in real life?

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Your sig is interesting.

Originally posted by: nutxo

Keep telling yourself that

:beer:

Now what is Kerry gonna cry about though???

------------------------------

Ever notice how the people who are most insulting on the internet are the biggest pu**ies in real life?

I changed it Like the new one?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: nutxo

I changed it Like the new one?

You're village called, they want thier idiot back!

Yes, but do I understand it correctly? You are once again suggesting hypocrisy because you don't spell "you're" right?

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: nutxo

I changed it Like the new one?

You're village called, they want thier idiot back!

Yes, but do I understand it correctly? You are once again suggesting hypocrisy because you don't spell "you're" right?

Whoops, sorry. Long long day.

edit: ack, I had to fix 4 typos in that one sentence!!!!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: oreagan
Alternate, less cynical title:

More good news in Iraq.


I've always supported the war against Saddam and believe it could turn out to be one of the greatest humanitarian victories of the century. News like this and the article yesterday about most of the independent militias giving up power voluntarily in Iraq are milestones that give me real hope. Why turn it into petty bickering?

:beer:
Exactly. This was a great day for not just us and the coalition - but a victory for the Iraqis.

On a lighter note - are "Freedom Fries" now back to being "French Fries" since the French now agreed(atleast their vote did) with us?

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: oreagan
Alternate, less cynical title:

More good news in Iraq.


I've always supported the war against Saddam and believe it could turn out to be one of the greatest humanitarian victories of the century. News like this and the article yesterday about most of the independent militias giving up power voluntarily in Iraq are milestones that give me real hope. Why turn it into petty bickering?

:beer:
Exactly. This was a great day for not just us and the coalition - but a victory for the Iraqis.

On a lighter note - are "Freedom Fries" now back to being "French Fries" since the French now agreed(atleast their vote did) with us?

CkG

Or is it that we decided to agree with the french? Back to "Freedom Fries"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur
Partisan? You calling me a Democrat?

HA!!

The only party I follow is the anti-BS party and this adminstration has proven to be full of that!

Bush promised full sovereignty but that's not going to happen. He lied.

No, he didn't as the other thread covered very well.

I see no need to point out the obvious and get into one of your little pissing matches. I appreciate the humor in your statements though.

What other thread?

This one?
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1326385&STARTPAGE=2&enterthread=y

Which contains this:

Transcript From Bush Speech on American Strategy in Iraq

The first of these steps will occur next month when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections. On June 30, the coalition provisional authority will cease to exist and will not be replaced. The occupation will end and Iraqis will govern their own affairs.

This new government will be advised by a national council, which will be chosen in July by Iraqis representing their country's diversity. This interim government will exercise full sovereignty until national elections are held.

The June 30 transfer of sovereignty is an essential commitment of our strategy. Iraqis are proud people who resent foreign control of their affairs - just as we would.

But keeping our promise on June 30, the coalition will demonstrate that we have no interest in occupation. And full sovereignty will give Iraqis a direct interest in the success of their own government.

Guess you like the taste of your foot, too.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur
Partisan? You calling me a Democrat?

HA!!

The only party I follow is the anti-BS party and this adminstration has proven to be full of that!

Bush promised full sovereignty but that's not going to happen. He lied.

No, he didn't as the other thread covered very well.

I see no need to point out the obvious and get into one of your little pissing matches. I appreciate the humor in your statements though.

What other thread?

This one?
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1326385&STARTPAGE=2&enterthread=y

Which contains this:

Transcript From Bush Speech on American Strategy in Iraq

The first of these steps will occur next month when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections. On June 30, the coalition provisional authority will cease to exist and will not be replaced. The occupation will end and Iraqis will govern their own affairs.

This new government will be advised by a national council, which will be chosen in July by Iraqis representing their country's diversity. This interim government will exercise full sovereignty until national elections are held.

The June 30 transfer of sovereignty is an essential commitment of our strategy. Iraqis are proud people who resent foreign control of their affairs - just as we would.

But keeping our promise on June 30, the coalition will demonstrate that we have no interest in occupation. And full sovereignty will give Iraqis a direct interest in the success of their own government.

Guess you like the taste of your foot, too.

So how will they not be governing their own affairs?

 

[conjur]

They will have no control over the U.S. forces. I'd call that a rather important aspect.


Also, does the new resolution allow this interim government to enact laws and enforce those laws? That was one of the limitations Bush was wanting before was to keep it from being able to do so.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
They will have no control over the U.S. forces. I'd call that a rather important aspect.

Nor should they have control over our forces.

If they ask to leave we should but until then we are welcome guests.

 

[AcidicFury]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
They will have no control over the U.S. forces. I'd call that a rather important aspect.

Nor should they have control over our forces.

If they ask to leave we should but until then we are welcome guests.

OK. Right...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: oreagan
Alternate, less cynical title:

More good news in Iraq.


I've always supported the war against Saddam and believe it could turn out to be one of the greatest humanitarian victories of the century. News like this and the article yesterday about most of the independent militias giving up power voluntarily in Iraq are milestones that give me real hope. Why turn it into petty bickering?

:beer:
Exactly. This was a great day for not just us and the coalition - but a victory for the Iraqis.

On a lighter note - are "Freedom Fries" now back to being "French Fries" since the French now agreed(atleast their vote did) with us?

CkG

Or is it that we decided to agree with the french? Back to "Freedom Fries"

Nope - they voted for our resolution. I happen to think they are did so because of the oil-for-fools program mess. Taking heat on that plus the pressure of blocking more resolutions regarding Iraq I think would have been to much politically.

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
They will have no control over the U.S. forces. I'd call that a rather important aspect.

Nor should they have control over our forces.

If they ask to leave we should but until then we are welcome guests.

OK. Right...

linkage

 

[AcidicFury]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
They will have no control over the U.S. forces. I'd call that a rather important aspect.

Nor should they have control over our forces.

If they ask to leave we should but until then we are welcome guests.

OK. Right...

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http:// <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&amp;amp;threadid=1327311&amp;amp;enterthread=y">http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&amp;threadid=1327311&amp;enterthread=y">read what i just posted</a></a>[/L]

Quote properly first.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Nope - they voted for our resolution. I happen to think they are did so because of the oil-for-fools program mess. Taking heat on that plus the pressure of blocking more resolutions regarding Iraq I think would have been to much politically.

CkG

Nah, the French are probably just bored with us and want us to stop nagging them about Iraq already.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
They will have no control over the U.S. forces. I'd call that a rather important aspect.

Nor should they have control over our forces.

If they ask to leave we should but until then we are welcome guests.

Welcome guests?!?!? W T F???

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
They will have no control over the U.S. forces. I'd call that a rather important aspect.

Nor should they have control over our forces.

If they ask to leave we should but until then we are welcome guests.

Exactly. Them not having control over our forces doesn't mean they don't have sovereignty. But we've covered that in the other thread where people were whining about Iraqis not having control of our troops.

CkG

 

[conjur]

Yes, and your point in that other thread were rebutted.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
They will have no control over the U.S. forces. I'd call that a rather important aspect.

Nor should they have control over our forces.

If they ask to leave we should but until then we are welcome guests.

Welcome guests?!?!? W T F???

Do you think iraqs new forces are capable of dealing with the trash that is currently causing problems in iraq?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
They will have no control over the U.S. forces. I'd call that a rather important aspect.

Nor should they have control over our forces.

If they ask to leave we should but until then we are welcome guests.

Welcome guests?!?!? W T F???

Do you think iraqs new forces are capable of dealing with the trash that is currently causing problems in iraq?

The new forces? No.

But that doesn't change the fact that the U.S. troops are NOT welcome guests.

I don't recall us receiving an invitation to take over the country, killing thousands and thousands of civilians in the process, torturing and murdering others.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
They will have no control over the U.S. forces. I'd call that a rather important aspect.

Nor should they have control over our forces.

If they ask to leave we should but until then we are welcome guests.

Welcome guests?!?!? W T F???

Do you think iraqs new forces are capable of dealing with the trash that is currently causing problems in iraq?

The new forces? No.

But that doesn't the fact that the U.S. troops are NOT welcome guests.

I don't recall us receiving an invitation to take over the country, killing thousands and thousands of civilians in the process, torturing and murdering others.

And we have not been asked to leave either....

 

[conjur]

So, that makes us welcome guests?

Someone comes into your home, raids your frig, burns your deck, breaks your windows, shorts out your wiring, tears out a wall, kills your dog, rapes your daughter and moves in. This person makes a few repairs and makes themselves at home. You ask them to leave or ask them to stay and clean up the mess?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, and your point in that other thread were rebutted.

And those attempts were not successful. The sovereignty of Iraq is not dependent on them having control of our troops. They wish to keep us on - they are exercising their sovereignty by doing so.

Back to the topic though....

It's funny how everyone was clammoring and clammoring for more UN involvment and yet some people are trying to dismiss this resolution.

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
So, that makes us welcome guests?

Someone comes into your home, throws out the abusive spouse, breaks a fews things in the process. Now you daughter is no longer being raped This person starts making repairs right away, leaving things in better condition than before. They offer to stay and help out until you can get back on your feet

fixed your post

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
So, that makes us welcome guests?

Someone comes into your home, throws out the abusive spouse, breaks a fews things in the process. Now you daughter is no longer being raped This person starts making repairs right away, leaving things in better condition than before. They offer to stay and help out until you can get back on your feet

fixed your post

Yeah...more ignoring of the facts there.

How about responding with something a bit less childish?